Green Room

O’Donnell’s LinkedIn Profile Raises More Questions; UPDATED: Another Site Lists Oxford?

posted at 10:07 am on September 29, 2010 by

Remember those fights on the Right we had over Christine O’Donnell’s candidacy?  It seems so long ago when conservatives who had serious questions about her credibility were put on a RINO purge list.  Ah, well.  Water under the bridge, of course.

Except, she appears to have “enhanced” even more of her school record, and the Left has noticed.

Most are aware of her previous claims of graduating from Fairleigh Dickinson University and attending graduate-level courses at Princeton.  O’Donnell supporters were satisfied with her clarification of owing the school money before she could technically graduate from Fairleigh (receiving her degree only last September).  Her explanation for the reality that she hadn’t attended a single course at Princeton?  Simple mistake.  (I know I mix up my real school history with my fantasies all the time.  In lawsuits.)

Yet, on her LinkedIn profile she also lists Claremont Graduate University and University of Oxford as further educational experience:

Gary Scott, former reporter and producer of To the Point, investigated locally:

The same resume lists O’Donnell as having attended Claremont Graduate University in Claremont, California. The claim seemed suspicious since O’Donnell had yet to receive her undergraduate degree, from Farleigh Dickinson University, until last summer. So I asked CGU’s public relations officer, Rod Leveque, if the school had any record of O’Donnell attending classes there. His response:

In short, no. Claremont Graduate University has no student or education record for an individual named Christine O’Donnell.In 2002, O’Donnell was listed as a “Lincoln Fellow” at the Claremont Institute, a conservative think tank also based in Claremont. However, the institute is not affiliated with the Claremont Graduate University or any of the other Claremont Colleges. One of the Claremont Institute’s fellows, Harry Jaffa, did teach at the Claremont Graduate University back when it was known as Claremont Graduate School.

Got that?  Claremont Institute is a think tank, not a graduate school as she claimed.  Quite a difference.

Then there’s Oxford.  The Oxford. Greg Sargent of Washington Post’s Plum Line reports:

Asked to account for the claim about Oxford, Diana Banister, a spokesperson for O’Donnell, told me it was a reference to a certificate she obtained from a course at Oxford overseen by the Phoenix Instutute, which “runs summer seminar programs at universities around the world.” The Phoenix Institute defines itself as an institution that runs summer sessions “on three continents” in the quest to answer the question, “What is it to be human?”

But Chris Fletcher, who oversaw the Institute’s 2001 Oxford Summer Programme, which included the course O’Donnell took, tells me the course was not overseen by Oxford.

“We never represented it as a course run by Oxford University,” Fletcher, who is now an assistant professor of religious studies at Benedictine University in Illinois, told me. Fletcher said the only connection to Oxford is that they rented space there and organized some lectures with “guest lecturers from Oxford and Cambridge” as well as from other institutions.

“It wasn’t an official course of Oxford University,” Fletcher said. “It wasn’t sponsored by Oxford University. We rented the space.”

“It was our curriculum, and we did the grades,” Fletcher continued. Fletcher’s conclusion about O’Donnell’s Oxford claim: “It’s misleading.”

Once is misspeaking.  Twice is an odd coincidence.  (Kindly, please don’t do it again, Ms. O’Donnell.)  Three times is clearly an issue.  But four or more?  That’s a pattern and crosses the threshold into character.  For someone with no record, we have only her character to recommend her.  Because of the high-profile endorsements she garnered, based on said character and her word alone, she’s now linked to both the Tea Party movement and Sarah Palin, among others.  This isn’t okay.

Admittedly, the Delaware primary wasn’t a simple race to parse.  Opinions spanned the gamut with plenty of vitriol on both sides.  Yet, can’t we all agree that her habitual “misspeaking” is, at the very least, a problem?  This isn’t sexism.  This isn’t personal attack.  It’s getting ahead of an issue we wouldn’t even tolerate in moderate Republicans, let alone our opponents on the Left.  Is our new motto “just words, just speeches” at the expense of reality?  Are we changing the rules because she’s “one of our own” and we’re hoping for a win?  Why, that seems remarkably…pragmatic.

For unity!

See Patterico’s related post and other articles on O’Donnell here.

UPDATE:  LinkedIn profile is fake?  Katrina Trinko at NRO posted this statement from the O’Donnell campaign:

There have been reports that I have released false information on a LinkedIn profile under my name.  This is categorically untrue.  I never established a LinkedIn profile, or authorized anyone to do so on my behalf.  I have always been clear about my educational background.  I completed undergraduate work at Fairleigh Dickenson University.  After my undergraduate work, I completed a summer program run by the Phoenix Institute, at the Institute’s Oxford University location.  The Institute runs programs around the world at various universities, and participants study issues of human dignity.  I also completed a Lincoln Fellowship at the Claremont Institute in Claremont, CA.   We would encourage LinkedIn to remove this profile.

Trinko also quotes Greg Sargent’s response to statement:

As the person who first reported yesterday on the Oxford claim on O’Donnell’s LinkedIn profile, let me be clear: I asked O’Donnell’s spokesperson, Diane Banister, for comment on the profile’s Oxford claim last Friday. Banister never once claimed the profile wasn’t put up by O’Donnell. Indeed, in response to my inquiry, Banister justified the claim on the LinkedIn profile by pointing to O’Donnell’s stint at Phoenix University.

Nor did O’Donnell’s spox dispute that the LinkedIn profile was hers when I again emailed her yesterday to let her know I was close to publishing.

Interesting.


UPDATE: Greg Sargent at WaPo reports LinkedIn’s response to O’Donnell:

LinkedIn has now responded to Christine O’Donnell’s claim that she had no role in posting her online bio, which falsely claimed she studied at Oxford. But right now, LinkedIn says, it’s not yet in a position to determine whether or not O’Donnell is telling the truth.

“We have taken the profile down. That’s all we are confirming,” LinkedIn spokesperson Shannon Stubo emailed me. “It was taken down in response to Christine O’Donnell’s request. This is not an acknowledgment that the profile was fake.”

To reiterate: O’Donnell’s campaign spokesperson didn’t indicate that the profile was unauthorized when I contacted her for comment last week, or when I contacted her yesterday before publishing.

UPDATE:  Patterico notes here:

Since O’Donnell says the LinkedIn page was not created by her, or anyone acting at her direction, it’s time we uncovered the imposter.  Someone has gone to great lengths to build a lengthy, mostly accurate profile of Ms. O’Donnell, which included subtle puffery about her educational background.  Assuming this person is not Ms. O’Donnell, this is a clever plot, as it feeds into the narrative that she has previously fibbed about her education. If we take Ms. O’Donnell at her word, then whoever perpetrated this travesty is likely an identity thief out to destroy Ms. O’Donnell’s reputation. I assume we all agree that this person must be exposed.

How the imposter got O’Donnell’s spokespeople to initially react as though the profile was hers, I’m not sure. It just goes to show that his or her access to Ms. O’Donnell may be more intimate than anyone imagines.

Meanwhile, O’Donnell’s imposter had 84 connections on her LinkedIn page (which has now been deleted — but don’t worry, there are screengrabs all over the Internet and the cache is still alive here). Perhaps one of those people managed to communicate with the imposter. These communications might reveal something about the imposter’s identity.

84 connections.

He’s right, of course.  If someone is fraudulently creating highly-detailed, favorable social networking sites for active politicians, this could be a criminal offense and the perpetrator should face charges. I urge both O’Donnell and LinkedIn to file a report and cooperate with law enforcement immediately.  This is tantamount to identity theft and certainly qualifies as cyber crime and all of us should be concerned.  We’re all Christine O’Donnell now!


UPDATE: Jeez.  Another site lists University of Oxford as part of her educational record (though manages to get the Claremont Institute right).  h/t Patterico and Ben Smith.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Now it begins. Let the sacrifice of the RINO commence!!! HA!! HA!! HA!!

Let’s hear it O’Donnell cultist. Tell us why all of this no big deal, that just because she professes conservative ideas, we are all obligated to forgive EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER FLAW.

It’s just another variation of the Bill Clinton/Ted Kennedy rule for liberal Women’s Groups. Act as an idiot all you want, as long as you support our ideology.

O’Donnell cultist, you believe the same thing.

HDFOB on September 29, 2010 at 10:31 AM

You win – she sucks as a candidate. The GOP should take out ads calling for DE voters to pull the lever for Coons.

katiejane on September 29, 2010 at 10:33 AM

katiejane on September 29, 2010 at 10:33 AM

What was it that people said? Coons was preferable than that filthy Mike Castle, anyway?

For the record, neither were palatable and I wished from the start that we’d stayed away from national endorsements.

Bee on September 29, 2010 at 10:38 AM

I don’t like this kind of thing. Blumenthal did it though, and still remains unscathed, and is still in the game.

I don’t condone ODonnells lying however. She needs to come clean, and do it NOW!!! Otherwise, she’s just another run of the mill politicians. If she lies about this, is she lying about her conservative agenda, should she be elected. I don’t like the idea of Coons winning, but at least people know where he stands. He’s a left liberal, hell bent on destruction of the country, power, and control.

capejasmine on September 29, 2010 at 10:40 AM

For the record, neither were palatable and I wished from the start that we’d stayed away from national endorsements.

Bee on September 29, 2010 at 10:38 AM

At this point “woulda, shoulda, coulda” doesn’t mean squat.

katiejane on September 29, 2010 at 10:43 AM

Are we changing the rules because she’s “one of our own” and we’re hoping for a win?

Yep. Plenty do it all the time. Take some behavior of a liberal that we scream and rant about, have a conservative do it, and suddenly excuses are made, the messenger is attacked, and the hypocrisy reigns.

MadisonConservative on September 29, 2010 at 10:48 AM

If she had taken any courses or training there, she would not have referred to Oxford University as the “University of Oxford”.

ya2daup on September 29, 2010 at 10:58 AM

At this point “woulda, shoulda, coulda” doesn’t mean squat.

katiejane on September 29, 2010 at 10:43 AM

But the GOP, the Tea Party movement and Sarah Palin, for one, do “mean squat.” Since we’re bent on purging RINOs for the sake of ideological purity, it stands to reason that O’Donnell’s penchant for, essentially, bedazzling her school record would matter.

Bee on September 29, 2010 at 10:59 AM

Are we changing the rules because she’s “one of our own” and we’re hoping for a win?

Heavens no – we need to stay on that high road so we can feel righteous when we lose.

The only time it’s acceptable to compromise on our principle, in fact required, is when conservatives are told they should suck it up and support a squishy moderate because otherwise we’ll “lose some winnable seat.” /s

katiejane on September 29, 2010 at 11:01 AM

Hey, she still has more real world expierence than our community organizer in chief, and i know how she will vote on the issues.
But I would think an apology and correction to her resume would be in order here, and it is still far better to put her in office than her opponent. It would also put her and others on notice that were not going to put up with shenenigans.

UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on September 29, 2010 at 11:06 AM

I commented during the primary that O’Donnell was a disaster waiting to happen. We didn’t have to wait long, that’s for sure.

Tres Angelas on September 29, 2010 at 11:09 AM

Hey, she still has more real world expierence than our community organizer in chief, and i know how she will vote on the issues.

UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on September 29, 2010 at 11:06 AM

If she’s a liar, you don’t have any idea how she will vote.

MadisonConservative on September 29, 2010 at 11:10 AM

Okay. Great, Diane. Does pointing this out in any way shape or form advance the cause of freedom and conservatism? So O’Donnell’s a train wreck. Can’t we just shut up and let the voters in DE make their own decision?

I’ve had plenty to say about Delaware since the primary, but I said nothing before the vote precisely because I was worried about the implications of national endorsements. But guess what? IT’S OVER. We now have two candidates from two parties. Bad, and worse. And I think that the whole problem to begin with is that the establishment didn’t trust the voters of Delaware to begin with, and now we’re all paying the price.

gryphon202 on September 29, 2010 at 11:16 AM

Thanks for doing the Dems’ oppo research! So what? Are you endorsing Coons now?

joe_doufu on September 29, 2010 at 11:24 AM

This begs the further question, if she was of such dubious “character and rectitude,” why the hell did the Republicans in Delaware run her on the primary ballot in the first place?!

I think Christine O’Donnell was a sacrificial lamb, to be quite frank. She was allowed to run because she wasn’t supposed to win. Now that she has the nomination, you people, along with Rove and the cabbage pounder, are raising a bigger stink about her than you ever did before the vote. No one’s going to come out of this smelling like roses.

gryphon202 on September 29, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Thanks for doing the Dems’ oppo research! So what? Are you endorsing Coons now?

joe_doufu on September 29, 2010 at 11:24 AM

Sure looks like it, don’t it, Joe?

gryphon202 on September 29, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Okay. Great, Diane. Does pointing this out in any way shape or form advance the cause of freedom and conservatism?

Depends if freedom and conservatism means being a serial liar.

So O’Donnell’s a train wreck. Can’t we just shut up and let the voters in DE make their own decision?

gryphon202 on September 29, 2010 at 11:16 AM

“Shut up”. Is that the same response you had to the Ground Zero mosque? Conservatives aren’t supposed to tell people to “shut up” when it comes to government employees whose salaries we pay.

MadisonConservative on September 29, 2010 at 11:31 AM

“Shut up”. Is that the same response you had to the Ground Zero mosque? Conservatives aren’t supposed to tell people to “shut up” when it comes to government employees whose salaries we pay.

MadisonConservative on September 29, 2010 at 11:31 AM

But we don’t get to vote for Christine O’Donnell. Are you literally telling me you would rather have Coons in that seat? Can’t you just come out and say it? In a choice between a serial liar and a bearded marxist, you’d rather have the marxist, wouldn’t you? I haven’t heard anyone say that here yet, and I’m just waiting.

gryphon202 on September 29, 2010 at 11:33 AM

Thanks for doing the Dems’ oppo research! So what? Are you endorsing Coons now?

joe_doufu on September 29, 2010 at 11:24 AM

How many times does it have to be said before you people get it through your heads?

Just because we recognize that O’Donnell sucks doesn’t mean we want Coons to win. It’s a no-win situation.

MadisonConservative on September 29, 2010 at 11:35 AM

Just because we recognize that O’Donnell sucks doesn’t mean we want Coons to win. It’s a no-win situation.

MadisonConservative on September 29, 2010 at 11:35 AM

Okay. If you don’t want Coons to win, then DON’T HELP HIM!

gryphon202 on September 29, 2010 at 11:36 AM

Okay. Great, Diane. Does pointing this out in any way shape or form advance the cause of freedom and conservatism? So O’Donnell’s a train wreck. Can’t we just shut up and let the voters in DE make their own decision?

gryphon202 on September 29, 2010 at 11:16 AM

That would seem to be the logical order of events, huh?

For the record, neither were palatable and I wished from the start that we’d stayed away from national endorsements.

Bee on September 29, 2010 at 10:38 AM

So which is it: refrain from national endorsements or refrain from making state elections national?

You can’t have it both ways.

conservative pilgrim on September 29, 2010 at 11:37 AM

But we don’t get to vote for Christine O’Donnell. Are you literally telling me you would rather have Coons in that seat? Can’t you just come out and say it? In a choice between a serial liar and a bearded marxist, you’d rather have the marxist, wouldn’t you? I haven’t heard anyone say that here yet, and I’m just waiting.

gryphon202 on September 29, 2010 at 11:33 AM

How about you examine my posts and my green room articles before you make your stupid implications, and the same with Diane?

Just because O’Donnell sucks doesn’t mean we support Coons. We’re not going to support a candidate just because they call themselves conservative. We want accountability. Try some consistency.

MadisonConservative on September 29, 2010 at 11:37 AM

Just because O’Donnell sucks doesn’t mean we support Coons. We’re not going to support a candidate just because they call themselves conservative. We want accountability. Try some consistency.

MadisonConservative on September 29, 2010 at 11:37 AM

You’re doing opposition research against a Republican candidate and then turning around and saying you don’t want Coons to win? Talk about consistency buddy…I’m not saying shut up because it’s the morally correct thing to do. I’m saying shut up if it really is a no-win situation. You’re not behaving as if it’s a no-win situation. You’re behaving as if you want Coons to win. I stand by my prior statements.

gryphon202 on September 29, 2010 at 11:39 AM

Okay. If you don’t want Coons to win, then DON’T HELP HIM!

gryphon202 on September 29, 2010 at 11:36 AM

We’re not going to keep quiet if the candidate is a dishonest person only looking out for their own interests. The fact that you are so blindly following this woman without looking at the fact that she’s a liar is revolting.

MadisonConservative on September 29, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Can’t we just shut up and let the voters in DE make their own decision?

An informed decision, yes. Since when is it wrong to have all the available knowledge about a candidate before voting for them? There’s a lot of lefties that would have still voted for Obama over McCain if they’d known the truth about him, but that doesn’t mean that it was right for the media to cover up what The Obammunist really is for the good of the voters. Same goes for O’Donnell.

RachDubya on September 29, 2010 at 11:40 AM

The fact that you are so blindly following this woman without looking at the fact that she’s a liar is revolting.

MadisonConservative on September 29, 2010 at 11:40 AM

And I find the fact that you are aiding and abetting an avowed marxist (Coons) revolting.

gryphon202 on September 29, 2010 at 11:41 AM

You’re doing opposition research against a Republican candidate and then turning around and saying you don’t want Coons to win?

It’s not “opposition research”, you nitwit. It’s research. If you don’t research a candidate before you support them, you’re a sheep.

You’re behaving as if you want Coons to win. I stand by my prior statements.

gryphon202 on September 29, 2010 at 11:39 AM

That’s because you’re a myopic twit. I hated John McCain, and I repeatedly pointed out his flaws. Didn’t mean I wanted Obama to win.

Do you want accountability from your representatives or not? If not, then you aren’t part of the tea party. If you’re attacking others for keeping an eye on candidates, then go line up with Nancy Pelosi, so you can say “you have to elect the candidate so you can find out if they’re honest”. You know, like ObamaCare.

MadisonConservative on September 29, 2010 at 11:43 AM

This false choice that one must deny flaws in one candidate or be accused of supporting the other is just silly.

RachDubya on September 29, 2010 at 11:43 AM

RachDubya on September 29, 2010 at 11:40 AM

The difference would be Obama was running a national campaign (in which the entire country votes on the candidate) and O’Donnell is running a state one (just the voters in Delaware vote). So yeah, if you’re from Delaware, then this article would help inform your decision on whether you should vote for O’Donnell or not.

conservative pilgrim on September 29, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Looks like a comment war has erupted. Long live the Delaware Duels! Gotta get back to work. Have fun. :-)

conservative pilgrim on September 29, 2010 at 11:46 AM

That’s because you’re a myopic twit. I hated John McCain, and I repeatedly pointed out his flaws. Didn’t mean I wanted Obama to win.

MadisonConservative on September 29, 2010 at 11:43 AM

McCain and Obama were two of a kind. Peas in a pod. O’Donnell and Coons, for better or for worse, don’t repsresent a false choice — philosophically speaking.

And by the way Mad, way to go with the name calling. I’m done on this thread.

gryphon202 on September 29, 2010 at 11:47 AM

And by the way Mad, way to go with the name calling. I’m done on this thread.

gryphon202 on September 29, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Like claiming someone is “aiding and abetting a Marxist”?

If you don’t want the debate to get rough, don’t throw the first punch.

MadisonConservative on September 29, 2010 at 11:55 AM

And I find the fact that you are aiding and abetting an avowed marxist (Coons) revolting.

gryphon202 on September 29, 2010 at 11:41 AM

It really doesn’t matter what the people at Hot Air is going to do, since Hot Air is not the guardians of this secret information about O’Donnell’s LinkedIn profile.

Don’t mention it here and what? Keep conservatives from knowing the fact that she embellished her resume again? The liberal blogs are going to mention it. The local media in the Wilmington and Salisbury markets are going to mention it. The national media’s certainly going to jump on it, and those are the places the moderate swing voters go for information, not here.

Swing voters are angry at Democrats, and they’d be willing to ignore the media shilling for Democrats and not vote for Coons under the right conditions. But thanks to her credibility problems, and her failure to own up to those, Christine is allowing all these problems to drip out a little bit at a time, meaning the focus never is going to shift to Coons and his pro-Obama beliefs.

Pretending that all the people pointing out O’Donnell’s flaws want Coons to win, and that if conservatives just hide the questionable stuff she’s done and run out the clock until Nov. 2 she’s got a chance to win is something the Kos kids do with their candidates. And when you start thinking like that, then as long as you agree with the candidate on issues A, B, C and D, any ethical flaws on issues W, X, Y and Z are permissible, because winning in November is the only thing that matters, and the candidate’s flaws will never, ever come back to haunt you in the months and years after the election (because we all know the liberal media would never, ever, ever, ever try to make Senator Christine O’Donnell and her flaws the poster child for all elected Republicans in Washington).

jon1979 on September 29, 2010 at 11:58 AM

Just because O’Donnell sucks doesn’t mean we support Coons. We’re not going to support a candidate just because they call themselves conservative. We want accountability. Try some consistency.

MadisonConservative on September 29, 2010 at 11:37 AM

We’re not going to keep quiet if the candidate is a dishonest person only looking out for their own interests. The fact that you are so blindly following this woman without looking at the fact that she’s a liar is revolting.

MadisonConservative on September 29, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Gotcha ya. You want to show how you’re not partisan in wanting good qualities in the candidate. I imagine many people would prefer that the GOP candidate be better. But she is the GOP candidate.

Apparently the bottom line is the DE voters have TWO choices – bad & worse – one of them is going to win. To spend significant time highlighting one candidate’s ( O’Donnell) faults implies you think she is worse than the other candidate (Coons)

katiejane on September 29, 2010 at 11:59 AM

RachDubya on September 29, 2010 at 11:40 AM

+1

Laura in Maryland on September 29, 2010 at 12:00 PM

To spend significant time highlighting one candidate’s ( O’Donnell) faults implies you think she is worse than the other candidate (Coons)

katiejane on September 29, 2010 at 11:59 AM

Nope. Just as bad. If you can’t trust this woman on anything, how can you trust her to vote the way you want?

MadisonConservative on September 29, 2010 at 12:02 PM

conservative pilgrim on September 29, 2010 at 11:45 AM

She gained traction because of the high-profile endorsements (Palin, DeMint, various pundits, etc.), thus propelling her to the national stage over other primary candidates who could have used the exposure. Now that she’s a nationally recognized candidate, we’re not supposed to talk about it…after talking about the primary ad nauseam prior? It was always Delaware’s choice but that stopped none of us from opining, particularly after the endorsements poured in and debate ensued.

I’m certainly not going to keep my mouth shut on a conservative site I write for when half of our number heartily endorses (while not living in Delaware) a candidate who isn’t being truthful about her record.

Bee on September 29, 2010 at 12:02 PM

If Castle didn’t amply deserve to lose for any other reason, he deserved to lose because this is all hitting after the primary.

At this point, he’s out — wishful thinking to the contrary — and O’Donnell is the Republican nominee…..with whatever faults she might have. Republicans need to push her over the finish line and think about the next election, in that order.

cthulhu on September 29, 2010 at 12:33 PM

It’s not lose-lose….it’s win-win.

Think about it, all this attention and money poured into this race from the left is a distraction from the utter volcano that is about to erupt on them. Even if she loses, we win.

“Here’s my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.” – Ronald Reagan

thebrokenrattle on September 29, 2010 at 12:40 PM

It’s too late for O’Donnell to come clean. She’s had multiple opportunities to do so and failed every time.

This Delaware race has the worst slate of candidates ever!

Too bad there isn’t a “None of the Above” option….

Ace ODale on September 29, 2010 at 12:43 PM

Thanks for doing the Dems’ oppo research! So what? Are you endorsing Coons now?

joe_doufu on September 29, 2010 at 11:24 AM

Did you read the post? She didn’t break a story. She’s writing about one that the Left already wrote about and investigated.

and the Left has noticed.

I’m a bit surprised by this. Did she really think no one would notice? I went to Standford during the summer of my junior year in high school. I actually stayed in their dorms and studied in their classrooms for several weeks. I even bought a Stanford sweat shirt because I hadn’t packed for the cold. Texas never need more than a T-shirt in the summer.

The program was prestigious in its own right, but it had nothing to do with Stanford or any of the actual Ivy League schools across the nation that hosted the same program. They did have faculty available to us if any were interested in applying, and surely a majority of those in the program got into schools like Cornell and Stanford.

But I didn’t. I didn’t even apply (no one from my school got accepted to an Ivy League school). So I don’t put it on my resume, even though I have complete faith that I could get away with it.

The fact that she would lie about this and the fact that she would think she could get away with it are horrible signs that we ignore at our peril. Many O’Donnell supporters told us at length that if Castle won, they’d support Coons. So by your own admission, he isn’t the worst thing that could happen to the seat.

Esthier on September 29, 2010 at 12:50 PM

You have got to be kidding me… this is not really that big a deal…

ninjapirate on September 29, 2010 at 12:52 PM

On the bright side, she didn’t spend millions blocking info about her college records.

Jeff2161 on September 29, 2010 at 12:55 PM

Read this…

http://www.redstate.com/ben_domenech/2010/09/28/lets-attack-christine-odonnells-linkedin-page/

I suspect that Christine did fill out the LinkedIn page some time ago and ran into the issues the poster describes. Rather than trying to explain what happened and get bogged down in the details, she’s asking to have it removed.

I was dating someone at one time. She asked me why I don’t want to have kids. And I was surprised by the question because I’ve always wanted kids. She pointed me to my profile on myspace where I’d apparently marked not wanting kids. It must have defaulted to that choice because i would have never chosen that option.

I don’t think her intention was to deceive.

dforston on September 29, 2010 at 12:57 PM

Folks, you guys are acting ridiculous… is a LinkedIn profile a resume? Check out her bio on her webpage and she wasn’t misleading anyone or trying to mislead anyone… good grief

ninjapirate on September 29, 2010 at 12:58 PM

You have got to be kidding me… this is not really that big a deal…

ninjapirate on September 29, 2010 at 12:52 PM

Well, that’s one way of looking at it. o_O

Esthier on September 29, 2010 at 12:50 PM

It’s pretty insulting, actually. The belief that no one would figure this out and/or that it really isn’t that big a deal is galling. Her word is her record, and at the rate she’s going it’s looking…bad.

I went to Salem College for a semester. They allowed students to take courses at Wake Forest in the event that Salem failed to offer it during the time a student needed to take it. Does that mean I get to add WFU to my resume?

Bee on September 29, 2010 at 1:03 PM

ninjapirate on September 29, 2010 at 12:55 PM

dforston on September 29, 2010 at 12:57 PM

That was in the Patterico piece I linked when I posted my article. I already read it.

You’re telling me that she wouldn’t give her page a final look and say, “Hey, given that I didn’t do anything related to Oxford nor attend a graduate school of any sort, maybe I shouldn’t give the impression that I did”?

Given that both cases were fellowships or non-traditional study, you either fill that in manually or you omit them. You do not list Oxford or another graduate school when it couldn’t be further from the truth.

Bee on September 29, 2010 at 1:12 PM

On the bright side, she didn’t spend millions blocking info about her college records.

Jeff2161 on September 29, 2010 at 12:55 PM

No, but she probably should have. If she had won that lawsuit, maybe she would have.

Esthier on September 29, 2010 at 1:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4