Seems that way:

Sending Me E-Mail Or Personal Casework Information

My personal Web site is not set up to collect any personal information about you when you visit the site unless you choose to provide that information. My Web site has an online form that you can use to send me an electronic mail message expressing your views or concerns. To send me an e-mail, the online form asks you for your name, address, and e-mail address. I use this information, if you choose to provide it, to contact you about your issues of interest and/or to provide any casework assistance I can regarding problems you may be experiencing in dealing with a government agency. This information will be available to members of my staff so they can help me in responding to your message or request.

If you are requesting help with a casework matter, it also may be necessary for my office to share the information you provide with the government agency from which you are requesting assistance, in order to respond to your request. My office will not share any personal information communicated through my Web site with any outside organization or individual, except in the following situations: (1) when needed to perform constituent casework at your request; (2) in the course of an authorized law enforcement investigation or emergency posing an imminent risk to public safety; or (3) if you choose to participate in my interactive online E-Government comment page, and authorize me to publish your comment, your name, and the organization you represent.

He forgot: "(4) in a laughable attempt to discredit a political opponent to whom I may have already lost in a primary election by leaking an email of his to the New York Times.":

A campaign aide to Mr. Lieberman alerted a reporter to the e-mail late Friday, after an article about Mr. Lamont’s recent comments appeared in The New York Times. Mr. Lieberman’s Senate office then faxed a copy of the message.

Which "campaign aide" violated Sen. Lieberman's privacy policy? Shouldn't that be a fireable offense?

Late Update: Some more reaction. Atrios asks a very good question:

A rather important - and perhaps legal - question is why a campaign aide has access to constituent letters to Joe's Senate office.

Perhaps legal, indeed. Since when do campaigns have access to constituent communications? Spazeboy makes a good observation:

It doesn’t seem right to me that an e-mail that I send to an elected official could be used against me or made public by that elected official should I choose to run for his seat at some point in the future.

It should unsettle all of us.

Matt Stoller gets the last word:

Lamont clearly was pushing Lieberman to denounce Starr's tactics in 1998. Read the letter, specifically the part where he says that Lieberman's speech was "the beginning of a process that has turned politically and morally offensive", and where he wrote that "mature adults would have handled this privately, not turned it into a political crusade and legal entanglement with no end in sight."

When Lieberman didn't do what Lamont recommended in the email, it was perfectly reasonable for Lamont to conclude that Lieberman was just grandstanding for the media.

Gerstein (who I assume is the "aide" in the original NYT piece) has less than nothing here, although he got the NYT and now the AP to print it. But he did so in violation of the Senator's own privacy policy. And quite possibly in violation of election law.

Late Late Update: Read the full email below the fold. The email was quite obviously written to crticicize Sen. Lieberman, not to praise him:

Dear Joe:

I reluctantly supported the moral outrage you expressed on September 3. I was reluctant because I thought it might make matters worse; I was reluctant because no one expressed moral outrage over how Reagan treated his kids or how Gingrich lied about supporting term limits (in other words, it was selective outrage); I was reluctant because the Starr inquisition is much more threatening to our civil liberties and national interest than Clinton's misbehavior."

I supported your statement because Clinton's behavior was outrageous: a Democrat had to stand up and state as much, and I hoped that your statement was the beginning of the end.

Unfortunately, the statement was the beginning of a process that has turned more political and morally offensive. I'm the father of three and the though that Clinton testifying about oral sex before a grand jury may be broadcast into my living room is outrageous. The Starr report read like a tabloid, not a legal recitation, and that streamed into my home via every medium available.

This sorry episode is an embarrassment to me as a father and to us as a nation. If Clinton has a sex problem, mature adults would have handled this privately, not turned it into a political crusade and legal entanglement with no end in sight.

You have expressed your outrage about the president's conduct; now stand up and use your moral authority to put an end to this snowballing mess. We all know the facts, a lot more than any of us care to know and should know. We've made up our minds that Clinton did wrong, confessed to his sin, maybe should be censured for lying --and let's move on.

It's time for you to make up your mind and speak your mind as you did so eloquently last Thursday.

Sincerely,

Ned Lamont
Greenwich Connecticut

cc Sen. Dodd, Rep. Shays