O'Donnell's Oxford Education Claim On Second Website Was Authored By Her, Says Site Spokesman

[Guest areafiftyone]

Huffington Post:

Delaware Republican Senatorial candidate Christine O'Donnell has responded to accusations that she overstated her education in her resume by insisting that a LinkedIn profile erroneously stating she went to Oxford University wasn't authored with her knowledge.

But now a new website has surfaced listing the same erroneous biographical information. And a website spokesman claims that O'Donnell entered the data herself.

On Thursday, the Democratic National Committee pointed out a second O'Donnell Internet profile also lists the candidate as having studied at the University of Oxford (O'Donnell took a course with the Phoenix Institute on Oxford's campus). On a Zoom Info entry, the Delaware Republican is described as having received a "Certificate" in "Post Modernism in the New Millennium" at the University of Oxford. The entry, as noted in the top right corner, was "User Verified."

[Stella]

I wonder what effect all of this is having in Delaware. Is this the constant talk of the local news stations?

[Guest areafiftyone]

I wonder what effect all of this is having in Delaware. Is this the constant talk of the local news stations?

 

Unfortunately I can't tell. I don't think this woman will be having an easy go of it from now on.

[Casino67]

Here is some of the coverage by our local/state paper.

 

Politics

 

And this is the 'politics' page.

 

Politics 2

 

We don't have a 'local' tv station, almost all comes out of Philly. And I don't listen much to what passes for local radio.

Sooooooo, didn't really answer your question did I?

[SrWoodchuck]

Huffington Post:

 

 

Area51!

 

 

HuffPo? Really?

 

I'm shocked that they'd write anything derogatory about O'Donnell.

 

I've commented before about this, but when you're in a fight for your life.......which I think we are.......should we be yanking the oars from someone who's trying to help us paddle faster, away from the waterfall?

 

When I first started posting, I was shut down for posting something from WorldNutDaily, a mostly conservative "tool" blog.

 

Reading HuffPo isn't going to give you anything that might remotely support a non-communist progressive vote.

[Casino67]

I only wish the MSM had scoured Urkel's past as thoroughly.

[Guest areafiftyone]

Huffington Post:

 

 

Area51!

 

 

HuffPo? Really?

 

I'm shocked that they'd write anything derogatory about O'Donnell.

 

I've commented before about this, but when you're in a fight for your life.......which I think we are.......should we be yanking the oars from someone who's trying to help us paddle faster, away from the waterfall?

 

When I first started posting, I was shut down for posting something from WorldNutDaily, a mostly conservative "tool" blog.

 

Reading HuffPo isn't going to give you anything that might remotely support a non-communist progressive vote.

 

I read and post from everywhere unless it's a problem with the moderators of this forum (and if it is I will of course cease posting from that site). I don't pick only conservative sites to post from because to me they are skewed one way as the liberal sites are skewed in the opposite direction. The only place of course I refuse to post from are ultra liberal blogs and sites like Daily Kos and a few other sites. I believe in seeing what is going on at all news sources - I never limit myself - if I did it would be like closing half of my brain off and saying - I'm not listening because I only think with half a brain.

 

But that is how I feel only about myself - I'm not talking about anyone else here on this site - I'm only talking about how I feel about posting.

 

But because I post from all sites does NOT mean I believe every single thing that I have posted. I just like to get an idea of what the other sites and other side is saying. My favorite phrase that one of my teachers used to say to me constantly was "forewarned is forearmed". Know what your enemy is thinking. As we should - this is the only way you can fight back with the right tactics.

[Stella]

Huffington Post:

 

 

Area51!

 

 

HuffPo? Really?

 

I'm shocked that they'd write anything derogatory about O'Donnell.

 

I've commented before about this, but when you're in a fight for your life.......which I think we are.......should we be yanking the oars from someone who's trying to help us paddle faster, away from the waterfall?

 

When I first started posting, I was shut down for posting something from WorldNutDaily, a mostly conservative "tool" blog.

 

Reading HuffPo isn't going to give you anything that might remotely support a non-communist progressive vote.

 

I read and post from everywhere unless it's a problem with the moderators of this forum (and if it is I will of course cease posting from that site). I don't pick only conservative sites to post from because to me they are skewed one way as the liberal sites are skewed in the opposite direction. The only place of course I refuse to post from are ultra liberal blogs and sites like Daily Kos and a few other sites. I believe in seeing what is going on at all news sources - I never limit myself - if I did it would be like closing half of my brain off and saying - I'm not listening because I only think with half a brain. But that is how I feel only about myself - I'm not talking about anyone else here.

 

But because I post from all sites does NOT mean I believe every single thing that I have posted. I just like to get an idea of what the other sites and other side is saying.

 

I feel the exact same way, A51. Part of it might come from living in a Blue state with absolutely off the wall, nutty Democrats. It's hard to be able to have a discussion with them if I don't know what their side is saying. I refuse to ever go to DU, and these other sites, but if someone else wants to, I am happy to know what is being discussed.

[Guest areafiftyone]

Huffington Post:

 

 

Area51!

 

 

HuffPo? Really?

 

I'm shocked that they'd write anything derogatory about O'Donnell.

 

I've commented before about this, but when you're in a fight for your life.......which I think we are.......should we be yanking the oars from someone who's trying to help us paddle faster, away from the waterfall?

 

When I first started posting, I was shut down for posting something from WorldNutDaily, a mostly conservative "tool" blog.

 

Reading HuffPo isn't going to give you anything that might remotely support a non-communist progressive vote.

 

I read and post from everywhere unless it's a problem with the moderators of this forum (and if it is I will of course cease posting from that site). I don't pick only conservative sites to post from because to me they are skewed one way as the liberal sites are skewed in the opposite direction. The only place of course I refuse to post from are ultra liberal blogs and sites like Daily Kos and a few other sites. I believe in seeing what is going on at all news sources - I never limit myself - if I did it would be like closing half of my brain off and saying - I'm not listening because I only think with half a brain. But that is how I feel only about myself - I'm not talking about anyone else here.

 

But because I post from all sites does NOT mean I believe every single thing that I have posted. I just like to get an idea of what the other sites and other side is saying.

 

I feel the exact same way, A51. Part of it might come from living in a Blue state with absolutely off the wall, nutty Democrats. It's hard to be able to have a discussion with them if I don't know what their side is saying. I refuse to ever go to DU, and these other sites, but if someone else wants to, I am happy to know what is being discussed.

 

I live in a stinky Blue state too so I have to be able to get alone with liberals at work - at home - in the neighborhood and know what is going on in their world was well as mine. I don't care for the forums like DU or Daily Kos - they are like the opposite but just as crazy as FR. But news is a different story - if it's news its going to get out there anyway regardless of what news website is posting it first. I ignore the comments section of course because that is just personal opinions - but I do read the news portion because usually even if the site is liberal they do have weblinks that connect to other major news organizations or videos on talking head shows which can confirm their stories.

[Chickadee]

In the cases of Whitman and O'Donnell, I keep trying to gauge my response in terms of "What would you say if this were happening to a liberal candidate?" and temper it with my strong desire to see conservative candidates be elected.

 

After the discussion with myself (har har) I find I am still a bit disgusted with O'Donnell but am more accepting of Whitman's explanation and overall personal integrity.

[Stella]

One of the things that disgusts me about politics, and I suspect that a lot of people feel the same way, is that the Parties don't step up and tell someone they are unqualified for the office they want to represent. O'Donnell is an embarrassment. There is not one thing about her that would qualify her to be a Senator. Always voting for the GOP does not qualify. That's what Burris is doing right now- taking up space and mindlessly voting for Obama. If we want Senators and Representatives to just vote along Party lines, then we as taxpayers, are spending millions of unnecessary dollars. Of course, robots wouldn't work out deals with lobbyists so maybe robots are a good thing.

 

Looking in from the outside, it really is too bad that Palin wasted political capital endorsing her. She is a bad candidate. Maybe that's why I respected Rove and Krauthammer for having the nerve to say the truth.

[pollyannaish]

What a great topic of discussion Stella!

 

I partially agree, but place the responsibility slightly differently.

 

It's not the parties that should tell people that, it is the people who VOTE who should. In the end, I think that is what may end up happening here. We can not blame any party for this, but only ourselves. As INDIVIDUAL Americans, it is our responsibility to do our homework. I believe that each of us must be diligent in trying to figure it out.

 

The press can make this very difficult to be sure. But our job as voters is to be diligent in finding out what is truth, what is spin and what is propaganda. And we have to be fair to our opponents this way as well. I have to say, that I find it all to easy to believe the best about my opponents, and the best about my candidates—in real life as well as politics.

 

I had a friend once who said that he'd rather vote for a Democrat of character than a charlatan Republican. For along time I really struggled against that...but I have come to believe that it is the lack of character...especially honesty, transparency and a belief in personal responsibility that have done the most harm to the country and it's foundational beliefs. Those are the character issues that have pushed us to the left.

 

I suppose, this is a big fat welcome to the Post-modern world. But I can't say I like it too much.

 

In any case, I'd like to believe that the GOP would do a good job of vetting candidates. But what they do is a good job of finding someone who polls well enough to win. In fact, their job is to WIN. Our job is to keep them from winning at all cost. (Hey! If I'd thought of summary that earlier, I could have skipped my whole blather/rant! )

 

Edited to add: I think the GOP establishment's biggest downfall was running an insider/too liberal candidate instead of looking for new exciting blood. They looked too closely at existing poll numbers, and not closely enough at what voters are clamoring for. Fresh, new, Non-elitist, small government help.

[Stella]

Pollyannish, everything has changed in politics because of the Internet. I will pick on the express once again because I am annoyed with them I signed up with the original Tea Party Movement on Facebook because that is where the information was located for time and place of the meeting downtown. Eric Odem, then used all the people who signed up to hawk his book. then, he sold out our email addresses to the Tea Party Express and I started getting things from them without realizing that I was now hooked up with a for-profit group. The Express through these tactics, got people to donate to them and their goal became interference in out of state elections. They didn't care if the person they nominated was even good for the state they would represent. They poured thousands of dollars into Delaware to influence an election and also into other states. People in these states thought they were viable candidates endorsed by the TPM and that wasn't the case at all. These candidates were picked because they were social conservatives.

 

Pollyanish, you have to agree that an awful lot of people don't bother to find out about the candidates. I cannot tell you the number of voters that came through the polling booths holding endorsements from the Tribune or the Sun Times. This is how Obama got elected. People had no idea what they were voting for.

 

The media confuses the issue because we have lazy journalists who didn't bother to find out that the TPM didn't endorse certain candidates, it was the Express which was dismissed by the TPM.

 

You have to admit that we have college graduates who are incapable of critical thinking and therefore, shouldn't be voting. When I went for election judge training the last time, the trainers were talking about the voter who came in and complained his candidate wasn't on the ballot. When the judge asked for the name of the candidate, he pulled out a paper that said "Vote for anyone but Bush" and he was looking for those exact words on the ballot.

 

We can say whatever we want about individual responsibility but an awful lot of voters don't even know what that means. Especially, since the media thinks their role is to tell the voters who to vote for.

[Valin]

In the cases of Whitman and O'Donnell, I keep trying to gauge my response in terms of "What would you say if this were happening to a liberal candidate?" and temper it with my strong desire to see conservative candidates be elected.

 

After the discussion with myself (har har) I find I am still a bit disgusted with O'Donnell but am more accepting of Whitman's explanation and overall personal integrity.

 

 

(Off Topic)

I'm still trying to figure out what Whitman did wrong. She found out someone in her employ was an illegal immigrant, so she fired her....isn't that what you are supposed to do?

[pollyannaish]

Pollyannish, everything has changed in politics because of the Internet. I will pick on the express once again because I am annoyed with them I signed up with the original Tea Party Movement on Facebook because that is where the information was located for time and place of the meeting downtown. Eric Odem, then used all the people who signed up to hawk his book. then, he sold out our email addresses to the Tea Party Express and I started getting things from them without realizing that I was now hooked up with a for-profit group. The Express through these tactics, got people to donate to them and their goal became interference in out of state elections. They didn't care if the person they nominated was even good for the state they would represent. They poured thousands of dollars into Delaware to influence an election and also into other states. People in these states thought they were viable candidates endorsed by the TPM and that wasn't the case at all. These candidates were picked because they were social conservatives.

 

That's very irritating and in my opinion, any group that does that sort of thing will not get my business/vote/support. On the other hand, I do believe in a certain amount of caveat emptor and believe they have a legal right to do it. But legal doesn't make it morally ok. This is why I am very hesitant to sign on to group causes. There's been one I've been looking at for awhile that I may give money too...but once bitten twice shy. I don't blame you a BIT!

 

Pollyanish, you have to agree that an awful lot of people don't bother to find out about the candidates. I cannot tell you the number of voters that came through the polling booths holding endorsements from the Tribune or the Sun Times. This is how Obama got elected. People had no idea what they were voting for.

 

Oh, absolutely right. People are not informed and tend to vote on a whim. This is the downside to democracy and one of the reasons I believe our founders made this a republic instead. It just gives us a moderation tool and allows us to have a hedge against extremism. I also believe that is the reason we have two parts in the legislature. BUT, I still believe that the people are in ultimate control of whom they elect. We get the government we deserve. The parties are not part of the governance process...they are a shortcut organization that we the people are supposed to regulate from below, not the top. They are the straight democracy part of the equation in a lot of ways.

 

The media confuses the issue because we have lazy journalists who didn't bother to find out that the TPM didn't endorse certain candidates, it was the Express which was dismissed by the TPM.

 

Don't get me started on the media! The I hate the media guys are pretty much my soul brothers. Ha! And this from someone who intended to be a journalist when she went to college. That is one of the reasons I love the internet. In fact, I just learned about the distinctions from you (I was vaguely aware of them, but they have no bearing in Washington State so it wasn't critical to the elections here) and I genuinely appreciate it. I will continue to do more research so I can understand it better. Thank you!

 

You have to admit that we have college graduates who are incapable of critical thinking and therefore, shouldn't be voting. When I went for election judge training the last time, the trainers were talking about the voter who came in and complained his candidate wasn't on the ballot. When the judge asked for the name of the candidate, he pulled out a paper that said "Vote for anyone but Bush" and he was looking for those exact words on the ballot.

 

I was a college instructor for six years, so no argument from me. I tried very hard not to bring politics into the classroom, although I did try to ask hard questions that might go against conventional wisdom...which on a college campus is also known as "liberal orthodoxy." That said, I would talk to students privately (if they asked) about what I believed on the condition that my role was not to convince, but to get them to ask different questions. My goal was pure and simple: learn to think for yourselves based on your own observations and by educating/testing your own assumptions. Sometimes they agreed with me, and sometimes they didn't...but they always would look at things differently. It was my own little itty bitty tiny way of trying to make the world a better place.

 

We can say whatever we want about individual responsibility but an awful lot of voters don't even know what that means. Especially, since the media thinks their role is to tell the voters who to vote for.

 

Yup. But it doesn't change the fact that those voters are responsible for their own votes and their own knowledge.The best we can do is help our own party communicate as well as possible, explain themselves and then hope those who belong to our party chose the best candidates we can to represent us. When we don't, we only have ourselves to blame. Well, yeah. Not me personally of course...but all you other goofs that voted for the wrong people. (Kidding of course.)

[pollyannaish]

In the cases of Whitman and O'Donnell, I keep trying to gauge my response in terms of "What would you say if this were happening to a liberal candidate?" and temper it with my strong desire to see conservative candidates be elected.

 

After the discussion with myself (har har) I find I am still a bit disgusted with O'Donnell but am more accepting of Whitman's explanation and overall personal integrity.

 

 

(Off Topic)

I'm still trying to figure out what Whitman did wrong. She found out someone in her employ was an illegal immigrant, so she fired her....isn't that what you are supposed to do?

 

She was a REPUBLICAN. That's what she did wrong.

 

(Other than that, she did nothing wrong at all, imo.)

[Valin]

In the cases of Whitman and O'Donnell, I keep trying to gauge my response in terms of "What would you say if this were happening to a liberal candidate?" and temper it with my strong desire to see conservative candidates be elected.

 

After the discussion with myself (har har) I find I am still a bit disgusted with O'Donnell but am more accepting of Whitman's explanation and overall personal integrity.

 

 

(Off Topic)

I'm still trying to figure out what Whitman did wrong. She found out someone in her employ was an illegal immigrant, so she fired her....isn't that what you are supposed to do?

 

She was a REPUBLICAN. That's what she did wrong.

 

(Other than that, she did nothing wrong at all, imo.)

 

 

She's a REPUBLICAN! Oh Ick! In a better world this would be a hanging offense.

[pollyannaish]

 

She's a REPUBLICAN! Oh Ick! In a better world this would be a hanging offense.

 

 

 

By the way, when I made that comment, I was wearing my official deputy badge: