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 2:07 PM

I’m still waiting for someone to explain what debating her at this point accomplishes. Her candidacy is a fact regardless of anyone’s misgivings. It’s either her or Coons.

katiejane on September 29, 2010 at 2:22 PM

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

It’s certainly possible that her campaign is so disorganized that the person the reporter talked to had no prior knowledge of the profile and when confronted with evidence of lies simply gave an explanation with the assumption that O’Donnell created the profile or allowed someone else to do so with her permission, and that once the story actually broke, someone closer to O’Donnell (or maybe O’Donnell herself) finally caught word of the story and came through with the truth.

That’s not what I believe happened, but it is possible. She’s gotten where she is because Castle is horrible and she actually supports conservatives ideals, not because she has an incredible campaign.

Esthier on September 29, 2010 at 2:23 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?

Rosmerta on September 29, 2010 at 2:19 PM

Of course, but that doesn’t speak well for her campaign.

Esthier on September 29, 2010 at 2:24 PM

And this is perfectly reasonable to debate. She has no official record except for her word.

Yes, she’s a weak candidate. She says things that people want to hear, but she has no record of public service or much of a record of accountability. We agree.

I hope we also agree that this “scandal” falls far short of anything that should disqualify her as a Senator in favor of Coons.

But this TPM story – the subject of your post – is a non-story. It really isn’t reasonable to debate it because there is so little there.

It is easy to verify that she was a fellow at the Claremont Institute (I did it a couple of weeks ago) and easy to see how CI might be substituted with CGU on a LinkedIn profile. Whether she entered that profile or a staffer did or a well-wisher or just some dummy who didn’t know CI is not CGU is really not the point. She did not claim to be a CGU student or graduate in anything I’ve read. (Not that CGU is such a great school that you’d want to brag about it, btw.) There’s simply no scandal here.

I would be more interested to know what she did while a CI Fellow and what the scholars at the Claremont Institute think of her now, but it’s apparently much easier to track down a sloppy LinkedIn profile and turn that into a scandal.

Y-not on September 29, 2010 at 2:25 PM

It’s either her or Coons.

katiejane on September 29, 2010 at 2:22 PM

Unless Castle enters the race.

Esthier on September 29, 2010 at 2:25 PM

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

BradSchwartze on September 29, 2010 at 2:17 PM

MC, naive? That’s laughable. He’s applying the same logic most O’D supporters did in the primary. Character/ideology matters, particularly when ousting dirty, filthy RINOs, right? Losing to the bearded Marxist was preferable to a Castle win. Now that O’D won, suddenly winning matters above all at the expense of character.

I…see.

Bee on September 29, 2010 at 2:26 PM

If the profile is fake, the campaign never should have defended it. She’s either being less than truthful about the LinkedIn profile, or she’s not managing her campaign well.

Neither option is great, really.

Slublog on September 29, 2010 at 2:27 PM

I’m still waiting for someone to explain what debating her at this point accomplishes. Her candidacy is a fact regardless of anyone’s misgivings. It’s either her or Coons.

katiejane on September 29, 2010 at 2:22 PM

My point exactly

WordsMatter on September 29, 2010 at 2:30 PM

Of course, but that doesn’t speak well for her campaign.

Esthier on September 29, 2010 at 2:24 PM

No, but it would at least be an innocent mistake, and the kind of rookie error I could easily see a new political figure making.

It’s also very possible the LI profile was put up as someone speculated earlier, by a well-wisher without the in-depth knowledge or sophistication to differentiate between Claremont Institute vs. School, etc. – someone who just wanted to spread her name. Or again, a detractor who wanted to manufacture a scandal. If O’D herself hasn’t made phony claims on her website or through other official means, I don’t think this proves anything that detrimental.

Rosmerta on September 29, 2010 at 2:31 PM

Oh c’mon people. Who uses a LinkedIn profile as a campaign device? Second, are you all really telling me that your social networking profiles are completely up to date or accurate?

When Facebook “upgraded” a while back it took all of my postdoctoral stints and turned them into postgraduate degrees. I had to go in by hand and remove them. And my recollection was that when I set up my LinkedIn profile (which *gasp* I haven’t checked or updated in a couple of years!), it did not recognize one of the Institutes where I studied and tried to substitute it with another name in its database.

Y-not on September 29, 2010 at 2:32 PM

I would be more interested to know what she did while a CI Fellow and what the scholars at the Claremont Institute think of her now, but it’s apparently much easier to track down a sloppy LinkedIn profile and turn that into a scandal.

Y-not on September 29, 2010 at 2:25 PM

Would you be interested if they have nothing positive to say? For many, the response to this story has been that it negatively impacts O’Donnell and therefore should wait until after the election or else you’re helping a Marxist.

Esthier on September 29, 2010 at 2:34 PM

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.

Rewritten history and clearly you have not put it ‘under the bridge’.

Jeckle on September 29, 2010 at 2:35 PM

No, but it would at least be an innocent mistake, and the kind of rookie error I could easily see a new political figure making.

Rosmerta on September 29, 2010 at 2:31 PM

Certainly, and that would be one thing if she wasn’t running for one of 100 positions in the Senate and was instead running for something a little more low key.

Esthier on September 29, 2010 at 2:39 PM

It’s a fine day for an inquisition.

Jeckle on September 29, 2010 at 2:41 PM

Second, are you all really telling me that your social networking profiles are completely up to date or accurate?

Y-not on September 29, 2010 at 2:32 PM

Up to date isn’t the issue. Accuracy is, and mine are all as accurate as I want them to be. I lied on myspace, saying I was gay, a large body builder and hate kids or something, but if I were running for office, I’d ditch that profile and create respectable, up-to-date profiles so that people looking to vote for me know who I am and what I would do for them. It’s free publicity and should be used accordingly.

Rewritten history and clearly you have not put it ‘under the bridge’.

Jeckle on September 29, 2010 at 2:35 PM

Pretty sure that was thinly veiled sarcasm.

Esthier on September 29, 2010 at 2:43 PM

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

BradSchwartze on September 29, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Now it’s naive to think that conservative candidates should be honest, or much more honest than Obama?

Good grief.

MadisonConservative on September 29, 2010 at 2:43 PM

It’s a fine day for an inquisition.

Jeckle on September 29, 2010 at 2:41 PM

That’s a little drama queenish, don’t you think? If O’Donnell can’t take this tiny heat, then she really should get out of the much warming race and Senate.

Esthier on September 29, 2010 at 2:46 PM

It’s a fine day for an inquisition.

Jeckle on September 29, 2010 at 2:41 PM

You are talking about candidate who is running from basic and appropriate scrutiny rather than being subjected to a torturous and unfair ‘inquisition.’ Campaigns aren’t easy and yeah we want to hear her defend some of the questionable things she herself has said and done. This is for the US Senate not a local planning board.

lexhamfox on September 29, 2010 at 2:54 PM

Would you be interested if they have nothing positive to say?

Esthier on September 29, 2010 at 2:34 PM

I don’t see why my motivations matter. It makes me think this is more about duking out old fights from the primary than whether or not O’Donnell is qualified to be Senator.

But since you ask, yes, I do want to know what they think that’s why I brought it up. I’m not fighting some other battle here. I think I made it clear I am not an O’Donnell fan and that I did my digging on her as a skeptic.

I’m happy for you that your social networking profiles are completely accurate. In my experience, these tools are prone to introducing errors, but I have a particularly lengthy and complicated academic resume. These tools try to create networks of people by looking for shared features. When places like Facebook and LinkedIn periodically update their databases, they often replace the things you put in your profile with linkable text. In my experience, when that happens errors get introduced.

It doesn’t change the fact that the Claremont Institute is a more prestigious institution than CGU, particularly in conservative political arenas, so it would be indeed quite odd to claim to be from CGU. And, there is no evidence that O’Donnell was making this claim anywhere else that I’ve seen. Those facts alone really suggest the LinkedIn profile was a mistake and weakens the impact of this supposed scandal.

Y-not on September 29, 2010 at 3:01 PM

I don’t see why my motivations matter.

Because you’re complaining that you’d rather hear about something else. I’m merely asking if you’re sincere.

And since so many in this thread are basically saying there’s no reason to point out her flaws as she’s our only hope, it’s a legitimate question for the thread if any negative news should be covered at all.

When places like Facebook and LinkedIn periodically update their databases, they often replace the things you put in your profile with linkable text. In my experience, when that happens errors get introduced.

Sure, problems can happen, and if that’s the case here, then it’s the one that should have been made when her campaign was asked. Instead, we’re told that it’s not really a lie even though it is, and then that it wasn’t her profile to begin with.

It doesn’t change the fact that the Claremont Institute is a more prestigious institution than CGU, particularly in conservative political arenas, so it would be indeed quite odd to claim to be from CGU. And, there is no evidence that O’Donnell was making this claim anywhere else that I’ve seen. Those facts alone really suggest the LinkedIn profile was a mistake and weakens the impact of this supposed scandal.

Y-not on September 29, 2010 at 3:01 PM

I’ve never heard of either and imagine most voters are the same. With that, a graduate program tends to carry more weight than an institute.

And ultimately, this is a problem O’Donnell has had before.

Esthier on September 29, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Bee on September 29, 2010 at 2:26 PM

If you think I was engaging in RINO-hunting, you have me mistaken for someone a little more bloodthirsty. I’ll quickly repeat what I’ve been saying all along vis-a-vis this Castle/O’Donnell fracas: It is much better to have a 41-year old telegenic female with flaws than a 71-year old “Mr. Name You Know” that is generally seen as a weak link when it counts.

As we’re seeing right now, the 41-year old telegenic female has more people talking about her, to the point where people can’t stop talking about her if they tried. Yes, I’m proud to admit I’m of the school of “Any publicity is good publicity.” Sue me.

BradSchwartze on September 29, 2010 at 3:16 PM

Sue me.

BradSchwartze on September 29, 2010 at 3:16 PM

You must have me mistaken for Christine O’D. I wouldn’t sue you because your position hurt my feelings. ;)

Bee on September 29, 2010 at 3:21 PM

You must have me mistaken for Christine O’D. I wouldn’t sue you because your position hurt my feelings.

Bee on September 29, 2010 at 3:21 PM
——–
No CD sues schools when she thinks she didn’t have enough time to do her homework.

Dave Rywall on September 29, 2010 at 3:35 PM

You must have me mistaken for Christine O’D. I wouldn’t sue you because your position hurt my feelings. ;)

Bee on September 29, 2010 at 3:21 PM

OH SHNAP!

MadisonConservative on September 29, 2010 at 3:36 PM

Dave Rywall on September 29, 2010 at 3:35 PM

Again, Drywall, why are you feeding the beast? I thought folks like you were too enlightened (whatever that means) to do what the stupid Right did when they broadcasted sweet outrage over every Bill Clinton misstep.

BradSchwartze on September 29, 2010 at 3:39 PM

Rewritten history and clearly you have not put it ‘under the bridge’.

Jeckle on September 29, 2010 at 2:35 PM

Pretty sure that was thinly veiled sarcasm.

Esthier on September 29, 2010 at 2:43 PM

Not sarcasm at all.

Jeckle on September 29, 2010 at 3:50 PM

Not sarcasm at all.

Jeckle on September 29, 2010 at 3:50 PM

Uh. Yes, it actually was. Promise. :)

Bee on September 29, 2010 at 3:52 PM

Character doesn’t matter. Background doesn’t matter. Experience doesn’t matter. Only ideology matters. Behold the thinking that “blessed” this country with Barack Obama.

Looking the other way on issues of character and honesty is never defensible. The right has no business acting like it’s a “principled” alternative to the left if it’s going to continue to excuse or ignore O’Donnell’s many issues. If her behavior doesn’t concern you, please save your hypocritical “outrage” over Alan Grayson’s actions. True principles are consistent, not situational.

But then the right has its marching orders from Rush–vote for anything that doesn’t have a “D” after its name. And that’s how a responsible citizen casts an intelligent vote? Really?

We have met the enemy, and it is us.

Meredith on September 29, 2010 at 3:55 PM

It’s a fine day for an inquisition.

Jeckle on September 29, 2010 at 2:41 PM

That’s a little drama queenish, don’t you think? If O’Donnell can’t take this tiny heat, then she really should get out of the much warming race and Senate.

Esthier on September 29, 2010 at 2:46 PM

Now this was where there was a certain measure of sarcasm, and she has taken all manner of heat and is still at 98.6. Rove and Krauthammer and Suffern and you – well, not so much.

Jeckle on September 29, 2010 at 3:55 PM

Confucius say, ‘Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without’.

Jeckle on September 29, 2010 at 3:57 PM

Clearly the establishment and their hanger-ons are having a major meltdown over this woman. Seems to even be surpassing even the hysteria over Palin.

Jeckle on September 29, 2010 at 4:00 PM

Jeckle on September 29, 2010 at 3:55 PM

Respectfully, if you wish to talk about trial by fire, let’s discuss Sarah Palin. O’Donnell is no Sarah Palin. Being asked about her own words and educational background (given that’s her entire record, mind you) and what appears to be an online networking account is not “taking heat.” It’s clarifying the record of someone running for high office. Please tell me you expect that much from our candidates. Something tells me you’d expect it from the left.

Bee on September 29, 2010 at 4:09 PM

Soooo….any interesting facts about Coons?

Just askin’

DrAllecon on September 29, 2010 at 4:10 PM

Now this was where there was a certain measure of sarcasm, and she has taken all manner of heat and is still at 98.6. Rove and Krauthammer and Suffern and you – well, not so much.

Jeckle on September 29, 2010 at 3:55 PM

No, that was not sarcasm. Do you need the definition?

Also, I’m not sure what heat you suppose you’ve brought my way, let alone Diane’s, Rove’s or Krauthammer’s, but I can tell you that I am most definitely still at 98.6.

Esthier on September 29, 2010 at 4:19 PM

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

That’s not my point. You said:

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

Yet that doesn’t stop you from jumping in the fray after their endorsement that you frown upon. You wish they’d “stay away from” making a state or local campaign national, but you participate anyway. That seems more like a contribution to the problem you disagree with than a resolution.

conservative pilgrim on September 29, 2010 at 4:36 PM

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

BradSchwartze on September 29, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Now it’s naive to think that conservative candidates should be honest, or much more honest than Obama?

Good grief.

MadisonConservative on September 29, 2010 at 2:43 PM

Sooner or later, everyone on this site advocating reason and principle ahead of blind partisanship gets pizzed upon. It’s your turn in the barrel.
My condolences.

audiculous on September 29, 2010 at 4:38 PM

Yet that doesn’t stop you from jumping in the fray after their endorsement that you frown upon. You wish they’d “stay away from” making a state or local campaign national, but you participate anyway. That seems more like a contribution to the problem you disagree with than a resolution.

conservative pilgrim on September 29, 2010 at 4:36 PM

That was poorly phrased. I meant, I wished that these pols/pundits having recognized this was a convoluted and controversial race in particular had actually not talked about it because it hurts our collective credibility. It’s pure wishful thinking on my part, not what happened.

Of course we all talked about it and piled on. :) That’s what we do here.

Bee on September 29, 2010 at 5:02 PM

No, that was not sarcasm. Do you need the definition?

Also, I’m not sure what heat you suppose you’ve brought my way, let alone Diane’s, Rove’s or Krauthammer’s, but I can tell you that I am most definitely still at 98.6.

Esthier on September 29, 2010 at 4:19 PM

Your reading comprehension is truly atrocious.

Jeckle on September 29, 2010 at 5:27 PM

Read Judges in the Bible. Specifically the chapters about Deborah. When the men wouldn’t stand and fight, God raised up a woman to lead the Israelites. Is this starting to sound familiar? God is raising up women to stand for our country because too few men will do it!

Heckle on September 29, 2010 at 5:32 PM

Bee on September 29, 2010 at 5:02 PM

Ok. Thanks for the clarification.

conservative pilgrim on September 29, 2010 at 6:04 PM

DrAllecon on September 29, 2010 at 4:10 PM

If he can’t bestir himself to toot his own horn (going the Castle route), why should I help out Harry Reid’s pet by pointing out his flaws?

BradSchwartze on September 29, 2010 at 7:10 PM

Whats the chance Castle isn’t dumb enough to lie on his resume.

Zaggs on September 30, 2010 at 1:34 PM

I don’t know what is being insinuated by the stuff on Zoominfo, but that site lists info for people that it gets from other places on the web. My name and info is listed there, including stuff that I recognize as taken directly from my own LinkedIn profile.

thirteen28 on September 30, 2010 at 6:53 PM

thirteen28 on September 30, 2010 at 6:53 PM

1. She fudged about completing her degree at Farleigh when she had an additional course plus money owed to the institution up until last September when she completed her undergrad degree. This wouldn’t be a big deal had she not…
2. Said in a the lawsuit against Intercollegiate Studies Institute that she was forced to ask for a tuition refund from Princeton while in masters degree courses (again before she had received her bachelor’s degree). She never attended the University nor applied. She later said it her lawyer’s error.
3. The LinkedIn profile is extremely detailed with 87 connections. It’s clearly her site. When Sargent from WaPo approached her campaign about ONLY the Oxford listing precisely one week ago, her campaign clarified the Oxford flap yet failed to say the LinkedIn profile was false. Keep in mind, the Oxford listing is not even the only nuanced entry she had on the page.
4, Now, given the media coverage, Christine O’D has come out saying the entire site is fraudulent…that someone made it up entirely. This is a big deal, if true. Cyber crime, anyone? If not…uh…
5. The ZoomInfo listing showed up and has similar wording, and the company has spent all day on the case, proving that she did, indeed, verify the information…including the entries.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/closing_the_book_on_the_christ.html

6. Now, the Claremont Institute think tank (you know, the one she erroneously listed as Claremont Graduate School) has said that her application stated she studied at Oxford, UK.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/claremont-institute-tells-tpm-odonnells-2002-resume-listed-oxford-university.php

That’s the timeline.

Basically, she’s been fibbing for a long time. I guess she assumed people wouldn’t notice. Welcome to the internet!

Bee on September 30, 2010 at 7:21 PM

Can someone say, “Narutoboy, you were right”?

She’s a LIAR. I said it all along. This has put the final nail in her coffin. Good riddance to the lying, regressive, fundamentalist, frivolous lawsuit filing witch.

“We donated 2 million dollars and all we got was this lousy, two-time loser candidate.”

Narutoboy on September 30, 2010 at 7:47 PM

Narutoboy on September 30, 2010 at 7:47 PM

Your glee is disturbing. I definitely disliked her, certainly distrusted her and knew she’d be an embarrassment. But, I don’t take pleasure in rubbing other conservatives’ faces in the mess. My motivation is to expose it, purely.

Just…watch the tone, N.

Bee on September 30, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Soooo….any interesting facts about Coons?

Just askin’

DrAllecon on September 29, 2010 at 4:10 PM

Sure, after he’s elected and the cannibalism festival moves on to someone else.

ddrintn on September 30, 2010 at 8:20 PM

Your glee is disturbing. I definitely disliked her, certainly distrusted her and knew she’d be an embarrassment. But, I don’t take pleasure in rubbing other conservatives’ faces in the mess. My motivation is to expose it, purely.

Bee on September 30, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Come off it. The entire post is dripping with Schadenfreude.

ddrintn on September 30, 2010 at 8:27 PM

ddrintn on September 30, 2010 at 8:20 PM

Cute.

Hey, remember this?

“So what if O’D is unelectable or dishonest. It’s better for a marxist to win the seat than that filthy stinking RINO, Castle. Eff pragmatism over party purity!”

Just wondering.

Bee on September 30, 2010 at 8:31 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4