Tea Party Candidate Christine O'Donnell Falsely Claimed to Have Attended Universities

[hgc]

Here's the thing about the faked account claim --

She actually did attend some course in rented space at Oxford and she actually did have that "fellowship" at the Claremont Institute, which is in Claremont, CA, where Claremont Graduate School is. So the faker would have had to know these obscure facts about her history, and work up some fake variation of them for this profile. On top of that, the account was well maintained for a long time, with lots of invites sent and accepted. Really? Really?

But wait! There's more! Her profile on Zoominfo has a similar but not identical false claim about Oxford.

Wow. No wonder Karl Rove briefly went off the farm when she won that primary.

 

[johnny karate]

Faking an account is an hour or two for a mischievous somebody. Hardly a long way to go. I'll grant you, it's not planting a deliberately misspelled flash card with "potatoe" on it.

It might not be a long way to go (although it was very detailed, and had established 84 contacts), but it doesn't seem like there's a lot to be gained either. I'm not arguing that setting up a fake account is particulary taxing, I'm arguing that the cost-benefit ratio of doing so might make not make it worthwhile.

Well, maybe it says a lot, or maybe nothing if he hadn't talked to her.

Maybe, but I'm not seeing anyone denying these conversations took place.

 

[johnny karate]

Here's a thought: While privacy laws prevent LinkedIn from revealing the identity of whomever set up the account, couldn't they, with permission from O'Donnell, reveal it wasn't her, if that is in fact the case?

Any legal experts want to chime in on this?

 

[headscratcher4]

Unabogie wins the thread.

Indeed. Has anyone else noticed how, for a candidate from the anti-elitist, populist movement, she's very desperate to have it believed that she attended an elite institution.

 

[Unabogie]

Indeed. Has anyone else noticed how, for a candidate from the anti-elitist, populist movement, she's very desperate to have it believed that she attended an elite institution.

Thank you kindly. Can I win twice if I post THIS?

One thing we know is true: Christine O'Donnell was a Lincoln Fellow at the Claremont Institute in 2002. The rest, as we've closely chronicled, is all a bit fuzzy.

But TPM just spoke with a Claremont official who reviewed O'Donnell's 2002 application file. Ryan Williams, who oversees the Lincoln Fellowship program, told us that O'Donnell lists a certificate from Oxford University on her resume. "She did have a line about Oxford," he said as he looked at her file, which also included an essay and letters of recommendation.
Williams told us the item on O'Donnell's resume reads:

Oxford University, Oxford, UK Certificate awarded Summer 2001​

But O'Donnell did not attend Oxford. She received a certificate from a summer seminar program called the Phoenix Institute, which was housed on the Oxford campus. A Phoenix spokesman told the Washington Post's Greg Sargent the use of Oxford was "misleading."

 

[Puppycow]

Thank you kindly. Can I win twice if I post THIS?

This fits into a pattern. A pattern of fibbing about her education.

Ms. O’Donnell took the opportunity to reassure reporters that her commitment to the truth is unwavering.

“I have always been clear about my educational background,” she said.

For years, Ms. O’Donnell claimed to have earned a bachelor’s degree in 1993 from Fairleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey, when, in fact, she didn’t received the degree until just before the primary election early this month. The university had withheld it and sued her over unpaid bills.

In a 2005 lawsuit against a former employer, Ms. O’Donnell claimed that she had applied and enrolled in classes at Princeton for the fall 2003 semester to “work toward a master’s degree.” Later, she said she was just taking an undergraduate course, blaming the error on her lawyer.

In scrambling away from the controversy, Ms. O’Donnell’s campaign effectively suggested that profile might have been set up by opponents, a familiar reprise for Ms. O’Donnell, who accused Senator Joseph R. Biden, her opponent in the 2008 Senate race, of tapping her phones and other opponents of vandalizing her home.

Also, Greg Sargent has this.

 

[Puppycow]

While there isn't enough information to determine whether or not the account, and thus the embellishment, was hers, I agree that this is a political fail in terms of how she handled it.

I think we have reached the point where the cumulative weight of the evidence makes the chance that she is telling the truth vanishingly small.

1) It fits a pattern. We now know of several other instances of her making one of these false claims or other false claims about her education.
a) Her resume submitted to the Clairmont Institute claimed "Oxford University, Oxford, UK Certificate awarded Summer 2001"
b) She made similar false claims in a ZoomIn Profile
c) The conservative Weekly Standard reported that "although she didn't have a bachelor's degree until this year, O'Donnell implied she was taking master's degree classes at Princeton University in 2003."
d) In a radio interview she claimed her 1-week fellowship at the Clairmont Institute (a conservative think tank, not a college) was "a graduate fellowship".

2) Her campaign asked LinkedIn to remove the page, but has not asked LinkedIn to provide information that could confirm her claim. Why? If she knows this claim is true, wouldn't she want them to provide the info to confirm her claim?

 

[dudalb]

I just want to make it clear that Claremont Graduate school has no connection with the Claremont institute other then they are both in Claremont, California......

 

[linusrichard]

Jesus is going to be so mad when he hears about this.

 

[daredelvis]

The biggest hole in the whole story is that someone created a phony account that is otherwise more or less accurate except for this one thing that makes her look better than the reality. If it was an O'Donnell opponent, surely they would have made her look worse. If it was an O'Donnell supporter, wouldn't they have embellished other things as well, why just education?

Yep.


The secondary problem with Snooki O'Donnell, is that she is taking the spotlight away from crazy that spews from the other wacko teabagger party senate candidate, Rand Paul.

Daredelvis

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I'll grant you, it's not planting a deliberately misspelled flash card with "potatoe" on it.

OT - That must be an Indiana thing. I was in that state recently and I passed a farm stand selling "Tomatoes." /OT

 

[cwalner]

OT - That must be an Indiana thing. I was in that state recently and I passed a farm stand selling "Tomatoes." /OT

My understanding is that adding the 'e' when pluralizing is a technically correct, but not often used variation.

 

[ZirconBlue]

My understanding is that adding the 'e' when pluralizing is a technically correct, but not often used variation.

According to Microsoft Word's spellchecker (and iespell, apparently) "tomatoes" is correct, "tomatos" isn't.

I think the -oes is correct for plurals. The question is about the singular, where the -oe ending is at least non-standard.

 

[hgc]

According to Microsoft Word's spellchecker (and iespell, apparently) "tomatoes" is correct, "tomatos" isn't.

I think the -oes is correct for plurals. The question is about the singular, where the -oe ending is at least non-standard.

Frankly, I'm stunned that this is even under discussion. I thought it was common knowledge.

potato/potatoes
tomato/tomatoes

I could spell these things from about 2nd grade, and I'm no superstar speller.

 

[BenBurch]

The joke is that Dan Quayle mistakenly insisted that the singular was "potatoe" at an elementary school spelling-bee photo-op.

eta: Because some of the people here were not born yet...

 

[ZirconBlue]

Frankly, I'm stunned that this is even under discussion. I thought it was common knowledge.

potato/potatoes
tomato/tomatoes

I could spell these things from about 2nd grade, and I'm no superstar speller.

Same here. I was just trying to be nicer about it.

 

[Cleon]

eta: Because some of the people here were not born yet...

You just had to slip that in, didn't you?

Time to go yell at some durn kids to stay off my lawn...

 

[BenBurch]

You just had to slip that in, didn't you?

Time to go yell at some durn kids to stay off my lawn...

Sorry.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Here's a thought: While privacy laws prevent LinkedIn from revealing the identity of whomever set up the account, couldn't they, with permission from O'Donnell, reveal it wasn't her, if that is in fact the case?

Any legal experts want to chime in on this?

It is her right to privacy and she may waive it.

In other words, if she asked LI to release the data to the MSM they could legally do so and would be likely to do so in order to find the faker and prevent similar fakes. Without her permission LI can say no more than they have already said.

It is bad for her claim that she has not yet waived her right to privacy over this account.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Jesus is going to be so mad when he hears about this.

Spanking mad?