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

Bee on September 29, 2010 at 1:03 PM

LinkedIn is not your resume, not by a longshot. It is a social network that allows people with similar work/school skills to communicate with one another.

And apparently, Christine O’Donnell had a little disagreement with the idea that she created her LinkeIn profile:

http://www.nationalreview.com/battle10/248192/o-donnell-linkedin-account-fake-katrina-trinko

BradSchwartze on September 29, 2010 at 1:14 PM

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

Look at her website bio itself… she isn’t trying to mislead… give me a break…

ninjapirate on September 29, 2010 at 1:15 PM

BradSchwartze on September 29, 2010 at 1:14 PM

Thanks, Brad. I’ll update it. :)

Bee on September 29, 2010 at 1:16 PM

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

Bad analogy, not even close to the same thing.

WordsMatter on September 29, 2010 at 1:18 PM

Her word is her record, and at the rate she’s going it’s looking…bad.

Bee on September 29, 2010 at 1:03 PM

That’s why I much prefer candidates with a long record. This ousting the insiders thing is not as glamorous as many believe.

I don’t think her intention was to deceive.

dforston on September 29, 2010 at 12:57 PM

The kids thing is a specific question asked on myspace. Telling LinkedIn that you went to Oxford is something you have to manually enter, and it’s something she can manually change. It’s not something she needs to delete to fix.

Esthier on September 29, 2010 at 1:19 PM

MadisonConservative on September 29, 2010 at 12:02 PM

IDK, MadCon: Are you one of those silly, naive people who thinks that certain “flaws” kill a promising candidate dead, forevah? Or are you going to be adult about this and realize that the Left is only raising Crazy Christine’s profile by constantly harping on things like a LinkedIn profile?

Frankly, win or lose, Crazy Christine is going to be a long-term fixture in our political world. And I’m not really too sure I’d want to find out what a PITA she can be if/when she loses.

BradSchwartze on September 29, 2010 at 1:19 PM

Today, her campaign released a statement from O’Donnell saying that the LinkedIn profile was not created by her and asked that it be taken down:

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.

WordsMatter on September 29, 2010 at 1:20 PM

Hmmm… now Team O’Donnell is saying the LinkedIn page is fake… I didn’t think the LinkedIn profile was that big a deal… but I think they’ll lying here as I saw the profile the day after her big profile win.

http://www.nationalreview.com/battle10/248192/o-donnell-linkedin-account-fake-katrina-trinko

ninjapirate on September 29, 2010 at 1:21 PM

Esthier on September 29, 2010 at 1:19 PM

You are aware that other people can create profiles of you on social networks, right? And as far as your preference for candidates with “long records” goes, how do you know how your promising talent will perform if you keep having ol’ “Mr. Name You Know” propped up?

BradSchwartze on September 29, 2010 at 1:23 PM

I think the campaign is lying about her setting up the LinkedIn profile… I didn’t think the LinkedIn profile was that big a deal, but lying about setting up a LinkedIn profile is a huge deal.

ninjapirate on September 29, 2010 at 1:24 PM

IDK, MadCon: Are you one of those silly, naive people who thinks that certain “flaws” kill a promising candidate dead, forevah?

BradSchwartze on September 29, 2010 at 1:19 PM

So lying is a “flaw”?

Wake up.

MadisonConservative on September 29, 2010 at 1:27 PM

And apparently, Christine O’Donnell had a little disagreement with the idea that she created her LinkeIn profile:

http://www.nationalreview.com/battle10/248192/o-donnell-linkedin-account-fake-katrina-trinko

BradSchwartze on September 29, 2010 at 1:14 PM

Yes, though she’s apparently only saying this now as opposed to before the story broke, when her campaign was asked about the issue and instead claimed it was acceptable because O’Donnell did go to Oxford.

Esthier on September 29, 2010 at 1:27 PM

I think the campaign is lying about her setting up the LinkedIn profile… I didn’t think the LinkedIn profile was that big a deal, but lying about setting up a LinkedIn profile is a huge deal.

ninjapirate on September 29, 2010 at 1:24 PM

Any proof or just going with the gut? Seems like someone would have to know C.D. pretty well to lie in a somewhat subtle way… i.e., making the distinction between the Phoenix Institute and the location of the seminar at Oxford. That’s pretty detailed knowledge for a casual hating lefty to know.

WordsMatter on September 29, 2010 at 1:27 PM

Bad analogy, not even close to the same thing.

WordsMatter on September 29, 2010 at 1:18 PM

How so? Liars are liars.

MadisonConservative on September 29, 2010 at 1:27 PM

So lying is a “flaw”?

Wake up.

MadisonConservative on September 29, 2010 at 1:27 PM

By your standard, no one would be qualified to run for office… evah.

WordsMatter on September 29, 2010 at 1:28 PM

You are aware that other people can create profiles of you on social networks, right? And as far as your preference for candidates with “long records” goes, how do you know how your promising talent will perform if you keep having ol’ “Mr. Name You Know” propped up?

BradSchwartze on September 29, 2010 at 1:23 PM

I am aware. I’m also aware that when that happens, that’s usually the first defense, not the second one.

As to having new names show up? There are less high profile positions with less authority where new people can cut their teeth without jeopardizing anything.

Esthier on September 29, 2010 at 1:28 PM

How so? Liars are liars.

MadisonConservative on September 29, 2010 at 1:27 PM

Nope, different kinds of lies. People tell the truth about some things, lie about others.

WordsMatter on September 29, 2010 at 1:29 PM

By your standard, no one would be qualified to run for office… evah.

WordsMatter on September 29, 2010 at 1:28 PM

Oh, please. Multiple, documented lies about her financial background, about her political history…wanna list off where Palin’s done that? DeMint? Other conservative candidates?

MadisonConservative on September 29, 2010 at 1:32 PM

ninjapirate on September 29, 2010 at 1:24 PM

I’m not sure, considering how quickly one can update a Wikipedia page, it’s not surprising in the least that someone not authorized to do so can create a LinkedIn page in such an urgent manner.

BradSchwartze on September 29, 2010 at 1:32 PM

Any proof or just going with the gut? Seems like someone would have to know C.D. pretty well to lie in a somewhat subtle way… i.e., making the distinction between the Phoenix Institute and the location of the seminar at Oxford. That’s pretty detailed knowledge for a casual hating lefty to know.

I saw her LinkedIn profile the day after she won her big primary a couple weeks ago… if it is fake it had to have been done by someone who knows her pretty well… and it was done a long time ago…

ninjapirate on September 29, 2010 at 1:33 PM

Oh, please. Multiple, documented lies about her financial background, about her political history…wanna list off where Palin’s done that? DeMint? Other conservative candidates?

MadisonConservative on September 29, 2010 at 1:32 PM

Have you read C.D.’s rebuttal to those allegations on her website? If so, you believe those who seek to tear her down rather than the person who knows the issue best?

What? Have you been under a rock your entire life? No profession relies on lying more than that of a politician. Sheesh.

WordsMatter on September 29, 2010 at 1:34 PM

Updated. Will post more as they come.

Bee on September 29, 2010 at 1:34 PM

, it’s not surprising in the least that someone not authorized to do so can create a LinkedIn page in such an urgent manner.

I saw her linkedin profile a few weeks ago…

This story is 2 weeks old…

http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk/article/christine-odonnells-linkedin-says-she-studied-at-oxford/19634846

Whoever created it created it a long time ago… and knew Christine pretty well…

ninjapirate on September 29, 2010 at 1:35 PM

MadisonConservative on September 29, 2010 at 1:27 PM

Read up on the whole CV of Bill Clinton sometimes, and tell me 75% the lies he told weren’t blown out of proportion by the Rush Limbaughs of this world who were just as much out for fame and fortune as the Clenis was.

Crazy Christine is becoming a media star, and the Left are feeding that beast in much the same way the Right fed the Clenis.

BradSchwartze on September 29, 2010 at 1:35 PM

I saw her LinkedIn profile the day after she won her big primary a couple weeks ago… if it is fake it had to have been done by someone who knows her pretty well… and it was done a long time ago…

ninjapirate on September 29, 2010 at 1:33 PM

Seems like the smoking gun could be Linkedin stating when the profile was posted. If it was a year or two ago… uh oh… game over.

WordsMatter on September 29, 2010 at 1:36 PM

MadisonConservative on September 29, 2010 at 1:32 PM

Well, considering that the link I provided earlier mentioned similar issues with a Sarah Palin “authorized” LinkedIn page….

BradSchwartze on September 29, 2010 at 1:38 PM

ninjapirate on September 29, 2010 at 1:35 PM

Which is why WaPo’s Sargent wants to know why no one said it was a counterfeit when he first asked the campaign for a comment.

Bee on September 29, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Crazy Christine is becoming a media star, and the Left are feeding that beast in much the same way the Right fed the Clenis.

BradSchwartze on September 29, 2010 at 1:35 PM

Christine’s alleged lies don’t compare to Obama’s lies. That guy lies every time he opens his mouth, with the intent of abetting his destructive agenda, a far worse crime than anything O’Donnell has been alleged to have done to-date.

WordsMatter on September 29, 2010 at 1:39 PM

It isn’t outside the realm of possibility that the LinkedIn profile is fake… I just think the odds are against it being fake… whoever created it done it a long time ago and knew a lot about Christine…

David Keegan is a guy from her last campaign who thought he got jipped… IIRC, there was an anti-Christine O’Donnell website setup by him… he ambushed her at her announcement that she was going to run for Senate… IF IT IS FAKE(big if), look at him first.

ninjapirate on September 29, 2010 at 1:40 PM

Journalist: Hey your linkedin profile is f’d up. What’s with Oxford, etc etc?

OD camp: Oh, those – those are simple mistakes. Our explanation is bla bla bla

Journalist: Okay – I’m going to publish this, with your explanations

(puts story out)

OD camp: WAIT WAIT EVERYONE THE PROFILE IS A FAKE!

There are people out there stupid enough to believe this bullsh*t?

Wake the f up.

Dave Rywall on September 29, 2010 at 1:42 PM

WordsMatter on September 29, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Agreed. Just pointing out that the Left is reacting like the Right did when faced with a telegenic Rightie like Crazy Christine.

BradSchwartze on September 29, 2010 at 1:42 PM

David Keegan is a guy from her last campaign who thought he got jipped… IIRC, there was an anti-Christine O’Donnell website setup by him… he ambushed her at her announcement that she was going to run for Senate… IF IT IS FAKE(big if), look at him first.

ninjapirate on September 29, 2010 at 1:40 PM

Awesome, convenient scapegoat for the O’Donnell campaign. The timing might work out for blaming him too.

WordsMatter on September 29, 2010 at 1:42 PM

Dave Rywall on September 29, 2010 at 1:42 PM

Why you feeding the Crazy Christine monster, Drywall?

BradSchwartze on September 29, 2010 at 1:43 PM

Wake the f up.

Dave Rywall on September 29, 2010 at 1:42 PM

Actually, if they were simple mistakes, that would be the most plausible explanatin, and frankly, very forgivable in this case.

WordsMatter on September 29, 2010 at 1:44 PM

I am stunned that anyone right of center would take this “scandal” seriously.

Her LinkedIn profile is equivalent to a job application? Puhlease. What next, using her “Interests” section of her Facebook page to prove she doesn’t really like football?

I am not a fan of O’Donnell. When her candidacy hit the conservative blogs and everyone seemed to be all up in arms about her I did some background checking on her, including reading several bios and stories on her. Not once did I see a bio that claimed she went to CGU. (I’m sure I would have noticed that as I recently left the Claremont Colleges where my husband and I both worked.) I did see that she was a fellow at the Claremont Institute, an organization with which I am familiar and that has a very good reputation in conservative circles. I dug around their site, confirmed she was a fellow, but found nothing else about what she did while a fellow there etc.

Social networking tools like LinkedIn and Facebook are buggy and should not be taken as anything more than an attempt to “link” people through their shared backgrounds. I have a lot of degrees and postdoctoral research stints in my cv. In my experience, if an institution is not recognized by one of these tools, the tool tries its best to find a match. I bet dollars to donuts that when Claremont Institute was typed in, Claremont Graduate University was substituted by the program.

Why not research what she did while at CI or talk with the respected scholars and fellows who are there and ask them what they thought of her? Carrying the liberal media’s water on this weak sauce accusation is pathetic.

Y-not on September 29, 2010 at 1:45 PM

I didn’t think the LinkedIn profile was that big a deal, but if she’s lying about actually creating it then game over… it’s time to get behind Mike Castle…

ninjapirate on September 29, 2010 at 1:47 PM

Have you read C.D.’s rebuttal to those allegations on her website? If so, you believe those who seek to tear her down rather than the person who knows the issue best?

WordsMatter on September 29, 2010 at 1:34 PM

I believe the people with the evidence. Her detractors have it. She has denials, and she’s been caught lying and prevaricating in interviews.

MadisonConservative on September 29, 2010 at 1:48 PM

I didn’t think the LinkedIn profile was that big a deal, but if she’s lying about actually creating it

It will be simple enough to confirm it. If she used her profile the way most people do, then there should be multiple people with whom she networked during the time it’s been up.

Y-not on September 29, 2010 at 1:49 PM

Christine’s alleged lies don’t compare to Obama’s lies.

WordsMatter on September 29, 2010 at 1:39 PM

SO WHAT? Obama is not a standard by which we should be judging candidates! Conservatives are supposed to be worlds better than the dink-in-chief! How low are we going to set our standards???

MadisonConservative on September 29, 2010 at 1:49 PM

Y-not on September 29, 2010 at 1:45 PM

I’m a huge fan… the bearded marxist or the person who will vote against cap and tax, liberal judges appointees, and for repeal of Obamacare.

WordsMatter on September 29, 2010 at 1:49 PM

Y-not on September 29, 2010 at 1:45 PM

Her candidacy itself is the job application and LinkedIn is merely used to network/serve as a sort of online resume of sorts. I was playing around given all the furor over her record to date. Probably not clear enough, though. Sorry! :)

Bee on September 29, 2010 at 1:50 PM

SO WHAT? Obama is not a standard by which we should be judging candidates! Conservatives are supposed to be worlds better than the dink-in-chief! How low are we going to set our standards???

MadisonConservative on September 29, 2010 at 1:49 PM

Context: I was responding to someone else’s post comparing lefty and righty reaction.

WordsMatter on September 29, 2010 at 1:50 PM

Yeah, everyone just vote for Coons.

He’s obviously the better candidate at this point.

Otherwise, what’s the point? Other than getting to say, “I told you so” even though she’s our only option at this point.

uknowmorethanme on September 29, 2010 at 1:53 PM

Otherwise, what’s the point? Other than getting to say, “I told you so” even though she’s our only option at this point.

uknowmorethanme on September 29, 2010 at 1:53 PM

Yes, just robotically stick to your “principles” for some “lies” that your candidate has made, even though rebutted. And vote for someone who will vote lockstep with a guy who wants to destroy our way of life through transformation. Yeah, just stick to those principles.

WordsMatter on September 29, 2010 at 1:55 PM

Probably not clear enough, though. Sorry! :)

Bee on September 29, 2010 at 1:50 PM

I guess not. I completely missed the sarcasm in your post.

I don’t think it’s a good idea to give legs to this non-story. Personally, I think she’s a weak candidate, but she is the nominee and something like this just fuels the misguided notion that Castle is a viable alternative.

If there are real scandals that disqualify her, fine, root those out. But this is a smear job. From what I’ve seen, almost all of these candidates are at the mercy of whatever semi-clueless campaign staffer (or worse) is manning the phone when the media calls or setting up her web page or whatever.

Y-not on September 29, 2010 at 1:58 PM

Which is why WaPo’s Sargent wants to know why no one said it was a counterfeit when he first asked the campaign for a comment.

Bee on September 29, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Well, spokespeople often talk without knowing WTF they’re talking about… and look at how Sargent got the date wrong himself…

Still, I doubt Team O’Donnell’s story…

ninjapirate on September 29, 2010 at 2:07 PM

Y-not on September 29, 2010 at 1:58 PM

You call it a smear job, I call it opinion. I was never an O’D supporter although I’m a solid, traditional conservative. If I were willing to risk the scorn of fellow conservatives and any good reputation I hoped to have on this site and elsewhere by disputing her candidacy, then I’m not going to sing kumbaya for the sake of unity just because she won.

And this is perfectly reasonable to debate. She has no official record except for her word. If we aren’t allowed to talk about that, what can we talk about? All she has is her word, you know?

Bee on September 29, 2010 at 2:07 PM

MadisonConservative on September 29, 2010 at 1:49 PM

Again, your naivete is showing. You have to get that under control.

BradSchwartze on September 29, 2010 at 2:17 PM

You call it a smear job, I call it opinion.

I was referencing the original TPM story, not your article.

Y-not on September 29, 2010 at 2:18 PM

Yes, though she’s apparently only saying this now as opposed to before the story broke, when her campaign was asked about the issue and instead claimed it was acceptable because O’Donnell did go to Oxford.

Esthier on September 29, 2010 at 1:27 PM

Could it be that her campaign rep wasn’t aware of the LinkedIn profile at all and was just answering based on what she knew about O’Donnell’s background?

If the profile is fake, that means O’D hasn’t been involved with LinkedIn at all, since she hasn’t produced another, “authentic” profile to counter the allegations. And if she was never on LinkedIn at all, the fake profile might have been under the campaign’s radar until it was brought to their attention by someone else.

Rosmerta on September 29, 2010 at 2:19 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4