Also, will the more tech savvy than me please chime in below... Any campaign has all their code stored someplace, just in case something (like this) happens. How long would it take to put the website up on another server? Ten minutes? An hour? Surely less than 24 hours, right?
It seems that the news story has more value than their website, because they are not taking the steps necessary to get it back up as soon as possible.
Also, why aren't the mainstream media people asking the tech writers/correspondents at their own outlet? They should be able to answer these questions...
Charles Gaba in the comments (in full, because he said it better than I could have):
I'm a web developer, not an actual sys admin, but I can tell you this much: the Lieberman campaign SHOULD have a full backup of the site, the database, redundant servers and power supplies. They SHOULD have several alternate domain names to redirect the primary domain towards, and each of those domains should be set up on a different server with at least a "bare bones" version of the website (the static stuff at least).
For that matter, I'm a bit stunned that a campaign as large and expensive as this one is doesn't have their web server in-house in the first place (instead of using an external 3rd-party hosting company). That's the sort of thing I'd expect from someone running for state house or city council, not the United States Senate (especially an incumbant!). I have no idea whether the Lamont campaign site is hosted in-house or not but I'd be pretty surprised if it isn't.
The bulk of the Lieberman campaign's static content (positions, photos, media files, etc) should have already been hosted on at least one backup site, hosted separately, at (for example) lieberman2006.com or something like that. In that situation, all they would have to do would be to change the name servers to repoint towards the alternate site--or, at worst, put a "this site has moved HERE" link on joe2006.com, just like you'd see on the simplest mom & pop site.
None of this is meant to forgive whoever took it down, but it shows a stunningly sloppy IT team at the Lieberman camp IMHO.
The Lieberman campaign sloppy? Couldn't be...