Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Another Christine O'Donnell embellishment: She misleadingly claims she studied at Oxford

In another move that will raise further questions about Christine O'Donnell's embellishment of her education record, she claims she studied at the University of Oxford -- but a look at her actual record shows this is at best an exaggeration and at worst an outright falsehood.

O'Donnell's LinkedIn bio page lists "University of Oxford" as one of the schools she attended, claiming she studied "Post Modernism in the New Millennium." But it turns out that was just a course conducted by an institution known as the Phoenix Institute, which merely rented space at Oxford.

What's more, the woman who oversaw Phoenix Institute's summer program at Oxford tells me O'Donnell's claim about studying at Oxford is "misleading."

By itself, O'Donnell's Oxford claim might not matter too much. But the larger context is that O'Donnell has already been nabbed fudging her education record not once, but twice. She claimed for several years to have graduated from Fairleigh Dickinson Unversity, but she actually obtained her bachelor's degree last summer. And in a lawsuit she suggested she was trying for a Master's degree courses at Princeton -- but subsequently acknowledged she hadn't taken a single Princeton graduate course.

O'Donnell's LinkedIn bio page lists the following under education:

Christine O'Donnell's Education

Fairleigh Dickinson University 1989 -- 1993

Claremont Graduate University

Constitutional Government

University of Oxford

"Post Modernism in the New Millennium"

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."

By Greg Sargent  | September 28, 2010; 12:09 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Testing 'American Taliban'
Next: Dear White House: Here's how to handle the left's "whining"

Comments

Good catch, Greg!

I take it that you see O'Donnell as a real threat?

"The DSCC evidently believes that she must be taken seriously. They’ve just purchased another $165,000 in airtime against her, according to FEC reports, bringing their total so far to $272,000."

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/dscc-spends-another-165000-againstodonnell-103880513.html#ixzz10qEt6XwW

Posted by: sbj3 | September 28, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

OT but not sure if you were paying attention in the other postings. Apparently, Obama hypnotized the Jews!:

"Republican U.S. Senate nominee Rand Paul belongs to a conservative doctors’ group that, among other things, has expressed doubts about the connection between HIV and AIDS and suggested that President Barack Obama may have been elected because he was able to hypnotize voters.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, based in Tucson, Ariz., advocates conservative and free-market solutions on health care and a variety of other political issues.

But it also uses its medical journal and Website as forums for unorthodox medical views.

Rand Paul, a Bowling Green ophthalmologist, has touted his credentials as a doctor during this year’s Senate race against Attorney General Jack Conway, a Democrat."

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100924/NEWS0106/309240084/1008/NEWS01/Rand+Paul+part+of+AAPS+doctors++group+airing+unusual+views

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 28, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Not to worry.

For the type of folks that support O'Donnell, this will just come as a relief - evidence that O'Donnell isn't one of them durned "elitists" with all that useless book-learnin'.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 28, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Remember when O'Donnell said it was never okay to lie, not even if you have Ann Frank in your attic and Nazi's on your doorstep?

But it is okay to lie if it gets you ahead in your career? Really?

Maybe O'Donnell just really, really, really hates Ann Frank? Or maybe it is some deep seated loathing of the Jews? Or maybe she thinks Nazis are swell and don't deserve their reputation?

There is one truth that makes these two conflicting things work out. It is a central tennant of American politics today and it can be summed up as such: IOKIYAR.

Posted by: nisleib | September 28, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Jesus, is this where we are now in terms of education and intellect in our government?

She pads her resume. Big surprise, given her statements about policy and anything to do with ideas.

But what's worse is that even if she had taken that course at Oxford, what would be the difference?

Since she doesn't even believe in evolution, I'm certain that having a grasp of Lyotard or Don Delillo is not going to make her a better Senator.

SO depressing.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 28, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Well, heck, I've studied at Harvard and Yale.

If reading a book in the parking lot of both esteemed institutions counts as "studying" at them. ;)

No, actually, I haven't even done that. I have read the comic on the menu at a Denny's, though. That counts, right?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 28, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

@Jenn: "For the type of folks that support O'Donnell, this will just come as a relief - evidence that O'Donnell isn't one of them durned 'elitists' with all that useless book-learnin'."

You say that as if it's a bad thing. :)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 28, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Kevin_Willis:

Quite literally, "I've studied at Harvard and Yale" is true if you studied in their parking lot. I'm still not sure where the "lie" is on this one. Ms. O'Donnell does not even claim to have "studied" simply listing where she did take a course under EDUCATION on some LinkedIn bio page.

You libs sure are stretching (I can't wait until she takes the Biden seat ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

"I have read the comic on the menu at a Denny's, though. That counts, right?"

Heck yeah that counts! I read the menu at an IHOP and am, therefore, the US Ambassador to the UN! How bout them apples? All I wanted was a ruttie tootie fresh and fruity breakfast!

Posted by: nisleib | September 28, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Another OT but wow!

"* On a related note, Paladino has acknowledged having a daughter with a mistress under his employ, in addition to his children with his wife. Last year, he brought the other daughter and her mother on a trip to the Vatican with his wife's permission."

h/t TMP via Benen

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 28, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

I wondered what it was about the Phoenix Institute that Ms. O'Donnell is not proud of. Turns out the PI runs summer seminars around the world. That's what it does.

The 2010 Summer Seminars for the Study of Western Institutions at the University of Notre Dame (USA) and the Neuwaldegg Castle in Vienna, Austria...

Good thing she didn't attend the seminar in 2010 or she would have attended Neuwaldegg Castle College.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 28, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington - re Paladino: So what? There is no problem with that because IOKIYAR!

Now, if Paladino were a Democrat THEN you would have an issue.

Posted by: nisleib | September 28, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Jake, she didn't say she studied "at" Oxford.

Under education, she listed: "University of Oxford."

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 28, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

More from the Phoenix Institute which isn't prestigious enough to be mentioned.

The first summer course was held in 1987 at the University of Texas at Tyler (USA). Since 1991 the Phoenix Institute holds its annual summer course at the renowned University of Notre Dame (USA). In 1996, the Institute extended its programs to Europe where from 1996 to 2001 parallel summer courses were held at the University of Oxford (UK). In 2003 the Phoenix Institute moved the European summer course to a more central location in Europe: Austria.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 28, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Sarcasm - Family Guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBztjzDr0fM

Posted by: sbj3 | September 28, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

BGinCHI at 12:22 PM


I actually had some of this information a few weeks ago. The SunTimes is reporting a story on Rahm's leased house in Chicago.


The story says the lease on the house was renewed on Sept 1 - but the parties made the arrangements over the summer.


The key question is this: did Rahm have a heads-up from Daley on his decision - the answer seems to be NO - in fact since Rahm renewed the lease, it appears that Rahm didn't even know there was a POSSIBILITY that Daley might retire.

The KEY is this: if that is the case, which appears correct - WHAT kind of support can Rahm expect from Daley ??


One answer may be: not much. The whole sequence seems to indicate that Daley is not helping Rahm much at all. Daley knew that Rahm had to move back - so the more lead time the better. To wait until September 7 really gives Rahm the least possible time to meet the Nov 22 filing deadline.


Anyway - Rahm's support with the Daley organization doesn't appear to be assured at all.


At this point Rahm has 5 months to raise the money and make the run for Feb 22 - for someone who has been in Washington for the time he has, Rahm is not really in a strong position.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 28, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Greg Sargent:

So? She took a course (administered by the Phoenix Institute) at Oxford -- it's part of her EDUCATION history -- you still haven't proven a "lie". Did she claim to have "attended" or "graduated" from Oxford? No.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainforest:

Seems as if the rats (Rahm just being the largest so far) are fleeing a sinking ship. Andy Card was GWB's Chief of Staff from the beginning in 2001 until 2006. Josh Bolten was 2006 to the end 2009. How many will Obama go through?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

I've worked in the Halls of Congress and on the Steps of the White House, be it I was working on a cross-word puzzle at the time but still!

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 28, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2 12:29 PM


I went to Princeton and Yale - for a day.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 28, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

"Did she claim to have 'attended' or 'graduated' from Oxford?"

Yes, she did, that's the point. Nowhere on her LinkedIn bio page does it mention Phoenix, it just says Oxford.

Now we can discuss at what point a partial truth disclosed in a manner that is meant to mislead becomes a lie if you would like, but I'm fairly sure I can guess your take on it: If a Democrat does it it is a lie, if a Republican does it is NOT a lie.

Posted by: nisleib | September 28, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

One of these things is not like the other ; )

"Jake, she didn't say she STUDIED 'AT' OXFORD." (Emphasis Added)

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 28, 2010 12:35 PM

Headine -- posted at 12:09 PM -- "Another Christine O'Donnell embellishment: She misleadingly claims she STUDIED AT OXFORD" (Emphasis Added)

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

SaveTheForest:

Good for you.

Maybe we should at least be thankful that Mr. Sargent is providing FULL DISCLOSURE up front "Another Christine O'Donnell embellishment:"

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Is there any truth to her listing of "Claremont Graduate University"? Christine O'Donnell was a "Lincoln Fellow" at something called the "Claremont Institute". The Claremont Institute is not in any way affiliated with the Claremont Colleges, including Claremont Graduate University.

How could she have been admitted to Claremont Graduate University without having received her undergradaute degree?

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 28, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps the other reason for the University of Oxford reference, rather than the Phoenix Institute, is to obscure that the Phoenix Institute puts on summer seminars which last one month. ONE MONTH.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 28, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

"""Under education, she listed: "University of Oxford.""""

HA!

Thou shalt not lie.

What a total fraud.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 28, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Jake's education:

San Diego Elementary School
San Diego High School
San Diego State College
Stanford Law School

---------------------------
But does it say he "attended" or "graduated" from there? Really, donchoo know nothin'?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 28, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues:

I graduated from Stanford Law School. Now, if you can find Ms. O'Donnell stating that she graduated from Oxford, you would have a point.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Jake,

I just realized that by your logic, we have something in common. I too studied at Stanford. I remember reading a chapter from a textbook while waiting to get in to a Dylan concert at Frost Amphitheater.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 28, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

I like this LinkedIn entry:

" Marketing Coordinator
Republican National Committee

(Non-Profit; 201-500 employees; Political Organization industry)

December 1993 — June 1995 (1 year 7 months)

Created and implemented the GOP-TV marketing strategy that the Washington Post credited for playing a significant role in the historic 1994 GOP sweep. "

She played a significant role in the '94 GOP sweep. lolol

She's guilty of padding her resume by stretching the truth. She should just own up to getting caught and get this over with.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 28, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

I once sent a text message from the Vatican. I've covered this on my resume under "Communications officer for Vatican, Rome, Italy, 2007."

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 28, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

I went to Harvard..........

for a day.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 28, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010 - The thing that really grates on my nerves about this is O'Donnell's previous stance on lying.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

O’DONNELL: A lie, whether it be a lie or an exaggeration, is disrespect to whoever you’re exaggerating or lying to, because it’s not respecting reality.

MAHER: Quite the opposite, it can be respect.

IZZARD: What if someone comes to you in the middle of the Second World War and says, ‘do you have any Jewish people in your house?’ and you do have them. That would be a lie. That would be disrespectful to Hitler.

O’DONNELL: I believe if I were in that situation, God would provide a way to do the right thing righteously. I believe that!

MAHER: God is not there. Hitler’s there and you’re there.

O’DONNELL: You never have to practice deception. God always provides a way out.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/15/odonnell-lie-jews/

Posted by: nisleib | September 28, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

bearclaw1:

Good for you.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

"I graduated from Stanford Law School."

Tracy/Star: "I am a LAWYER, so I know about...."

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 28, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington


FACT FACT FACT fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact factfact fact fact fact fact

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 28, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

She's starting to tread on 'Russia from my House' territory.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 28, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

The harder the left pounds the better Christine does. She went from down 14 points to down 9 and rising.

http://tinyurl.com/35g3p95

Posted by: DouglasK1 | September 28, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

nisleib:

None of you have proven "a lie or an exaggeration" yet.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainforest:

Careful, or you will give him alcohol poisoning.

mikefromArlington:

You do realize that TINA FEY (not Gov. Palin) said "I can see Russia from my house" right?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2, she totally padded her resume. Most everyone does it, but when you get caught, fess up to it and move on.

She should just clarify it in her LinkedIn and move on. The story would die in a day, not even.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 28, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

@Jenn,

Good point. Someone who went to Stanford Law School---no wait, GRADUATED from Stanford Law School---would be the PlumLine Expert on What Is A Lie.

Bwahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you sure you attended Stanford, Jake, or did you JUST graduate? And what does "graduate" really mean?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 28, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

I'm still trying to understand how a congress that was called to special session on Christmas Eve '09 to pass ObamaCare for 2 years can't vote to stop the biggest reduction in consumer spending in recent history. How would it help get us out of this recession if we reduce consumer spending by $70 billion because those consumers have incomes over $200,000?

Posted by: DouglasK1 | September 28, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Jake

This whole issue is ridiculous - thinking back, I have no idea who actually RAN the summer programs I attended.


However, I can you this: the promotional material from the Phoenix people probably put Oxford in prominence -


And Christine O'Donnell was actually THERE at Oxford - not in Arizona -


Would it be more deceiving to state that she was in Phoenix, Arizona? How does one write that?

In one page resumes, one writes things in shorthand - and one goes onto the next item.

I was at the White House ...........


for a tour.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 28, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

No we have a lawyer lecturing to all of us about lying!

Bwahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!

No offense to all you lawyers out there, but really lecturing on LYING????????????

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 28, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Any mention of educational institutions seems to have vanished form her website. But she previously boasted of a "fellowhip" from the Claremont Institute, a strip-mall ultra conservative outfit(judging from the Google Maps street view of the address) -- NOT the well-respected Claremont Graduate University. Did she claim the latter, anywhere? I don't think she could conceivably have been admitted -- but had she been, her interesting opinions would surely have evolved. Oh, wait...

Posted by: sylviaa | September 28, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

And Barack and Michelle Obama didn't hear what the Rev. Wright was preaching for 20 years.

Posted by: DouglasK1 | September 28, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Jake


Great point


fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 28, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

from a prior thread there is this from nsleib:
=================
America lost nothing. It was not theircountry, and Vietnam had never done anything hostile toward the USA. We had no business interfering in their rights to establish their own post French Colonial nation and identity.

You can not have it both ways. You can not go around invading other nations, that have not attacked us, and on the other hand complain about when countries such as Russia, Iraq, N. Korea, etc invade other nations.

=========================

Well this misses the point. The facts are plain: posturing such as the above resulted in America withdrawing from the field of battle in disgrace.

shortly thereafter the harvesting of heads by the communists began. Shortly after that the tragedy of the viet namese boat people ensued.

The American left owns all of that. but one must admire the die hard lefties. Rather than feel even a pang of guilt about the blood on their hands, they simply repeat the mother jones-esque talking points.

Somewhere out there Jane Fonda is smiling.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 28, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

From Steve Benen at http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

"OK, so when O'Donnell said she studied at Oxford, that appears to be a lie. When she said she had earned agree before she actually had, that was a lie, too. When she pointed to post-grad work at Princeton, that was also a lie.

"I suspect O'Donnell is rather self-conscious about the fact that she's not very bright, and has very little working knowledge or understanding of any subject, so it becomes necessary for her to, Mark Kirk-like, fabricate a background that doesn't exist. It's kind of sad, actually.

"But I'd extend the larger context a little more, and note that O'Donnell has presented herself to the public as someone who's borderline obsessed with telling the truth in all instances. In one of her more notorious TV appearances, she insisted that "telling the truth is always the right thing to do, I believe, and that's what always gets you out of a situation."

"Asked if she would lie to Nazis during World War II who showed up at her door looking for homes harboring Jews, O'Donnell replied, "You never have to practice deception."

"Unless, apparently, you're trying to deceive people about your academic background."

Posted by: michiganmaine | September 28, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest |
+++++++++++++++++++

STFR is sounding like one of the aliens from "Mars Attacks."

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 28, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

michiganmaine,

Christine O'Donnell doesn't "practice" deception. She doesn't have to. It just comes naturally to her.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 28, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Skip - Do you have a link to that quote you attribute to me? Because I sure don't recall writing that.

Posted by: nisleib | September 28, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

As we noted last week, the disclosures about Ms. O'Donnell just keep dripping out as Karl Rove predicted. He advised her to get in front of these disclosures, get them out herself and try to put the right spin on them. But did she do that? No, she turned on Rove and baited him.

Well, Rove has something like centuries more political experience than she does, so naturally he is being to look prescient. And she is beginning to look smaller and smaller.

Now, there are some on this blog who claim these disclosures improve Ms. O'Donnell's image. That is an argument that I fail to understand, but to each his own, I suppose.

I'm still betting on Karl.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 28, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

bearclaw

That is a reference to an earlier comment by Mike from Arlington

.

Are we going to talk about the economy - the liberals seem to just want to call the Tea Party racists - or call them crazy - or make some point about whether a course held at OXFORD CAMPUS was run by this group of tenured blow-harts - or that group of tenured blow-harts.

Meanwhile WHAT IS OBAMA'S ECONOMIC PLAN ?

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 28, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

michiganmaine:

"... she [Ms. O'Donnell] didn't say she STUDIED 'AT' OXFORD." (Emphasis Added)

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 28, 2010 12:35 PM

Take it up with our gracious host.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

CHRISTINE O'DONNELL PADDING HER RESUME IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR CHRISTINE O'DONNELL!!!

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 28, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Skip is, as always, wrong. I never made the comment he attributes to me, not that there is anything wrong with the comment per se.

Skip is pathologically incorrect.

Posted by: nisleib | September 28, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Obama has serious problems on his hands.


Clearly - the Generals are not behind Obama's Middle East policies - Woodward's book provides details and there is no doubt what the military experts believe what Obama is Risking - another major terrorist attack in the US.


Obama's economic team - is without ideas - their stimulus program has NOT worked and is discredited -


Does Obama's economic team have another idea? NO - they are leaving


Who will come in?


Rahm is looking to leave for Chicago - Axelrod is sharing a cab with Rahm to the airport - BOTH are leaving town.

RAHM IS SO DESPERATE TO LEAVE HE WANTS TO LIVE IN HIS OLD BASEMENT IN CHICAGO.


What does that tell you?


The Chief of Staff in Washington - one of the most powerful people in the WORLD - would rather live in a basement in Chicago than continue to work for Obama and his wacky policies.

OUCH.


.


Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 28, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

STFR,

I was under the impression that this thread is about Christine O'Donnell's chronic case of "education envy."

If you want to discuss Obama's economic plan with someone, go find a blog thread somewhere that is dedicated to that topic.

"Hijack not the blog thread, thus saith the Lord."

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 28, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Well see didn't say she studied in the city of Oxford or on the campus, but she suggested that she studied at "the University of Oxford", which we all know is simply untrue. She lied. We all know it. Dream on about her winning. Never going to happen.

Posted by: michiganmaine | September 28, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Poor Joke. Poor, poor, pathetic Joke.

Posted by: Observer691 | September 28, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

How long before the LinkedIn bio page gets sanitized of all her "Education".

Take a look now before it disappears:

http://www.linkedin.com/in/christineodonnell

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 28, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainforest:

I would enjoy discussing Obama's (lack of) economic plan with you. His rumored new Chief of Staff has some interesting facts in his background too ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Looking over the page itself is even worse than is implied here. She simply lists "University of Oxford" under Education. That is a lie.

Posted by: michiganmaine | September 28, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

All, my response to Joe Biden's "whining left" crack:

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

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 28, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

I don't think Rahm Emanuel is going to have it easy in Chicago


He has little time - 5 months before the election


If one looks at the ethnic groups and the unions in Chicago - Rahm really doesn't have a lead anywhere - if any, Rahm might be able to look toward union support.


The unions might decided to support one or another Aldermen who have been supporting union issues in Chicago over the past few years


It sure doesn't look like Daley is supporting Rahm, or throwing his organization behind Rahm. Rahm has ties to Daley - but questions are out there - especially with the timing.


If Rahm had ANY idea that Daley would have made that decision, wouldn't Rahm had not renewed the lease on his house.

OR put a 90 day out in the lease?


OR not renewed the lease at all?


THAT lease is telling - and it indicates that Rahm was out-of the loop on Daley's thinking over the summer - NOT a good sign if one is thinking that Rahm is going to get the support of Daley's organization in the Mayor's race.


Seems like Daley is throwing the race OPEN and not supporting anyone - meaning that the people in Daley's organization are free to splinter off to the many candidates.


That does not help Rahm.


The hispanics would be the key in that case - where they end up going

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 28, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

If I incorrectly attributed the quote to you, accept my sincere apologies. The content of the comment remains, however.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 28, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

bearclaw1 | September 28, 2010 1:43 PM


OK - Im sure you will now be the thread police

Anytime anyone - even a liberal - goes off-topic - you are going to complain, right ?


Just want to make sure you are holding to the post-partisan pledges.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 28, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Skip - No biggie, I don't really agree or disagree with the comment in question. I don't know the context, without the context I couldn't render judgement.

Posted by: nisleib | September 28, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

the comments I attributed to ns leib were those of another liberal stalwart: Liam-still.

Skipsailing28 regrets the error.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 28, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Yet ANOTHER candid disclosure: "Looking over the page itself is even worse than is implied here." Keep 'em coming, libs.

If anyone wants to, you know, actually make the argument that Ms. O'Donnell "lied" about this, free free to do so ("whenever she opens her mouth, she lies, therefore, she's lying about this" is not an argument but rather a logical fallacy ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Look, it was not her fault.

Paladino made her screw his horse, and she was still traumatized from that episode.

Posted by: trenda | September 28, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

STRF,

Sorry I hurt your feewings.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 28, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

This is a woman who would turn over Jews to the Nazis. She is very, very sick.

Posted by: Observer691 | September 28, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

The harder the left "pounds" the better Christine does. She went from down 14 points to down "9 and rising."


================

Umm, that sounds like a porn trailer!

Posted by: trenda | September 28, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

CORRECTION: she actually said "I believe if I were in that situation, God would provide a way to do the right thing righteously ... You never have to practice deception. God always provides a way out."

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

So far, we have stunningly candid admissions by:

A) Greg Sargent to yet ANOTHER "embellishment" of his about Christine O'Donnell;

B) "michiganmaine" to doing something even worse than is implied here while looking over the page itself; and (my personal favorite)

C) "trenda" posting complete libel, even using the higher "public figure" standard.

Any more dark, deep secrets you libs want to fess up to? I hear it's theraputic ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Wow - Republicans are really grasping at straws here. I can remember when this type of parsing used to be called "Clintonian."

Posted by: Rachelva | September 28, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

First of all, Ms. O'Donnell wasn't under oath. Second, even if it can be called "Clintonian" it was just fine with you libs back then ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

So did Christine O'Donnell attend "Claremont Graduate University"?

Or is she "embellishing" her 2002 fellowship from the Claremont Institute, which is not a university and not affiliated with Claremont Graduate University?

New campaign slogan:

"Christine O'Donnell for U.S. Senate.

Because you can't spell conservative without a con."

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 28, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

bearclaw1:

I hope you are not asking me that question (as you may recall from a prior thread, you refused to answer one of my questions to you, so I am no longer answering your questions to me : )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Did she say she "attended"? Did she say she "graduated". Was she under oath?

Listen to Jake, the lawyer, defend her.
-------------------------------------
Look at her page: http://www.linkedin.com/in/christineodonnell

Who you going to believe--Jake, the lawya or your own lying eyes?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 28, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2 @ September 28, 2010 12:42 PM wrote "
So? She took a course (administered by the Phoenix Institute) at Oxford -- it's part of her EDUCATION history -- you still haven't proven a "lie". Did she claim to have "attended" or "graduated" from Oxford? No."

YES, she did. Her education did not list Phoenix Institute, which is the institution with which she was affiliated. If she had said " by Phoenix Institute at Oxford" she would be misleading. But she did not.

Face it: she lies; she does not mislead, but she lies.

Posted by: AMviennaVA | September 28, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

"I take it that you see O'Donnell as a real threat?"

O'Donnell is a threat as long as there is a mob of teabag morons who would vote for her no matter what. The key is letting other voters (those with brains) know what a pathetic, lying, wacked-out nutbag she is.

Posted by: Observer691 | September 28, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Jake,

You can assume, now and for all eternity, that when I use a question mark, it is not a question directed to you. I hope that is sufficiently clear.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 28, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

AMviennaVA:

Her listing "University of Oxford" under EDUCATION is a claim of attending and/or graduating from Oxford? I disagree (obviously).

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

bearclaw1 @ September 28, 2010 2:53 PM wrote "So did Christine O'Donnell attend Claremont Graduate University?"

The answer is NO, she did not. She attended a course at Claremont Institute, which has no affiliation with Claremont Graduate University.

I wonder what her defenders here think of her character, not to mention anything else!

Posted by: AMviennaVA | September 28, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

I disagree with this too:

If she had said "by Phoenix Institute at Oxford" she would be misleading.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

AMviennaVA,

Interesting...she avoids like the plague using the term "Institute" and instead turns that into University. Seems like a trend. Since she didn't have her undergraduate degree in hand, no wonder she has to embellish her other "education". BTW, the Phoenix Institute offers summer seminars that last ONE MONTH. That's what's behind the "University of Oxford".

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 28, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

It is not an "embellisment."

It is a LIE.

The woman is a pathological liar.

Posted by: solsticebelle | September 28, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

AMviennaVA:

I don't think that she ever claimed to have "attended a course at Claremont Institute" but, for your information, it does have SOME affiliation with Claremont Graduate University. For instance, the Institute was founded in 1979 by four students of Harry V. Jaffa, a professor emeritus at Claremont McKenna College and the Claremont Graduate University. Larry P. Arnn (who obtained degrees in Government from the Claremont Graduate School — an M.A. in 1976 and a Ph.D. in 1985) served as Institute president from 1985 to 2000. Many of the fellows at the Institute are also professors at one or more of the Claremont Colleges (kinda like the Hoover Institution at Stanford ; )

Since her detractors have yet to prove even a single "lie" I can tell you honestly that I think highly of her character.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Listen, it's common sense.

This woman doesn't even have an undergraduate degree because she owed school loans. She works in an environment where graduate degrees are the norm. So how do you puff yourself up when you can't get a graduate degree and besides you have to obscure the lack of undergraduate degree?

Easy--enroll in a couple of seminars. Change the name of the Institutes to University. Line them up with your undergraduate listed first. Everyone will assume you have multiple graduate degrees.

Problem solved. Is it a lie? You betcha! The whole thing is a lie.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 28, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

solsticebelle:

Perhaps you could prove some other "lie" she has told?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

http://www.linkedin.com/in/christineodonnell

You better look at her page before she sanitizes it.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 28, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

@12Bar: "Problem solved. Is it a lie? You betcha! The whole thing is a lie."

Indubitably, Watson.

That being said, the question isn't really about the lie. Lying just means she qualified to be a DC politician. How effective is the lie? That really determines her political future, and how can she parse it once she gets called on it.

I doubt she was confused as to the fact that she was taking classes from Phoenix. I've taken classes at the Agricenter. I'd never say I studied at the Agricenter. Phoenix has classes at the Koger center near where I live. I don't think people put down "Studied at the Koger Center" on their resumes or LinkedIn pages.

In all fairness, this is something everybody with anemic resumes (which are often anemic through no fault of their own) do to pad them out when trying to make contacts and get gigs. Somehow, Christine got the senator-candidate gig.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 28, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

"it does have SOME affiliation with Claremont Graduate University."

Ooh, ooh, ooh, Jake went and looked up the Claremont Institute on wikipedia!!! Very clever, Jake!!!

Did you read the full sentence about how the Institute was founded:

"The institute was founded in 1979 by four students of Harry V. Jaffa, a professor emeritus at Claremont McKenna College and the Claremont Graduate University, although the Institute has no affiliation with any of the Claremont Colleges."

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 28, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Kevin_Willis:

I don't think that anything more than "I did study at the University of Oxford, even though it was a course offered by the Phoenix Institute. I was even able to do research in the world-renowned Bodleian library and found some spare time to take in The Ashmolean Museum and English countryside. Now, getting back to the real issue facing Delaware today ..."

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

O'Donnell is a serial liar, petty embezzler, and one-time "party girl" who, by her own admission, drank too much.

As such she is another perfect candidate for the party of "Family Values."

Posted by: WhateverHeSaid | September 28, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

JAKED2 wrote
"Quite literally, "I've studied at Harvard and Yale" is true if you studied in their parking lot. I'm still not sure where the "lie" is on this one. Ms. O'Donnell does not even claim to have "studied" simply listing where she did take a course under EDUCATION on some LinkedIn bio page.

Are you kidding me? Are you smoking too much incense? WTF... are you trying to justify that claim by O'Donnell?. Are you stupid or just plain STUPID? If you are of voting age, (and I hope you are not) I would support a change to the US constitution banning people like you from getting within 300 yards of a polling place. What hope do we have?
Jake are there more people like you where you come from? If so tell me where you live- I think it would be a great place for an amusement park.

Posted by: Geelong1 | September 28, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

"You can assume, now and for all eternity, that when I use a question mark, it is not a question directed to you. I hope that is sufficiently clear."

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 28, 2010 3:27 PM

Now, you are asking a question WITHOUT a question mark. Please, stop confusing me so ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

jake - You are getting crushed.

Look, she was misleading people, plain and simple. Why would she even put a one month course on her resume if she didn't like the way "Oxford" looked on her CV?

I'm in one of those professions where continuing education is a constant pain in my arse. It never ends. I would never list those courses as part of my education because that would be misleading.

Is it a lie? Hmm, I guess that depends on how you look at things. But given Christine's take:

O’DONNELL: A lie, whether it be a lie or an exaggeration, is disrespect to whoever you’re exaggerating or lying to, because it’s not respecting reality.

It does NOT live up to that standard.

Posted by: nisleib | September 28, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

To drive a stake through the dumb bimbo's lying heart, someone should ask her at which Oxford college she "studied."

The look of bewilderment on her face would be priceless.

Posted by: WhateverHeSaid | September 28, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Geelong1:

No, no, yes, neither, abandon ye all hope who enter here, and yes (not necessarily in that order ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

By the terms of this story, they called it the "2001 Oxford Summer Programme." *THAT* is misleading.

O'Donnell is the worst and weirdest candidate I can presently remember anywhere, but she doesn't have a monopoly on being misleading.

Posted by: Prozrenie | September 28, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

nisleib:

That question assumes facts not yet in evidence.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

WhateverHeSaid,

Yes, I would love to see her answer that question. Maybe she would resort to the Sarah Barelycoulda answer: "All of them."

As for "driving a stake through her heart" . . . she is a conservative, so having a heart would be a liability to begin with.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 28, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

solsticebelle:

Perhaps you could prove some other "lie" she has told?

Posted by: JakeD2 |

______________________________________

Too, too easy, Jake.

"On June 28, 2010, Christine O’Donnell was on WDEL with Rick Jensen. During that interview she was asked about a Federal Tax Lien. She called the lien, “Thug politics at it worst…” and said, “There wasn’t even a tax lien.”

You can see the tax lien here: http://www.delawaretomorrow.com/christine-odonnell-errors-mistakes-smears-and-thug-politics/

Posted by: WhateverHeSaid | September 28, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

This string of comments has been truly amazing. I'm having trouble believing that Jake could have possibly graduated from Stanford Law--can anybody check?

Posted by: cheles | September 28, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Anyone in any doubt about whether O'Donnell lies (are you there JakeD2?), should acquaint themselves with this:

http://www.delawaretomorrow.com/christine-odonnell-errors-mistakes-smears-and-thug-politics/

Any questions?

Posted by: WhateverHeSaid | September 28, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

WhateverHeSaid:

Are you also posting as "solsticebelle"? The MULTIPLE tax leins (not just a single one, so no "lie") were indeed thug politics. Or do you think that Paula Jones just "randomly" got audited by the IRS too? I bet you thought that Nixon bugging the DNC Watergate offices was "thug politics" though ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

O'Donnell padded her resume and would be fired if she even had a job! She is a crook and a liar, given her history of stealing campaign funds and lying about it. This all makes her the perfect candidate for the crazy, lunatic fringe touting family values while they lie, cheat and steal for the oil billionaires who back them. This woman is a total joke!

Posted by: hockeymom1 | September 28, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

This string of comments has been truly amazing. I'm having trouble believing that Jake could have possibly graduated from Stanford Law--can anybody check?

Posted by: cheles

______________________________________

Jake has the same shaky grasp on the truth as O'Donnell.

Posted by: WhateverHeSaid | September 28, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

cheles:

Office of Registrar 650) 723-0994
James Moore Dort, class of 1961

hockeymom1:

I thought the same about Al Franken, yet he is a SENATOR today ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

We fell down the proverbial "rabbit hole" on tea party heroes sometime back. Now, all of the foibles that would upend the normal politician only serve to enhance her street cred with the baggers. It's a race to the bottom, and I'm afraid O'Donnell won't be it.

Posted by: keller1 | September 28, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Jake - What question are you talking about?

I'm seriously doubting you have a law degree, or any degree.

Posted by: nisleib | September 28, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

WhateverHeSaid:

Are you also posting as "solsticebelle"? The MULTIPLE tax leins (not just a single one, so no "lie") were indeed thug politics. Or do you think that Paula Jones just "randomly" got audited by the IRS too? I bet you thought that Nixon bugging the DNC Watergate offices was "thug politics" though ; )

Posted by: JakeD2

___________________________________

She lied.

Having been caught trying to defend the indefensible, you now -- as usual -- blather, dance and divert.

O'Donnell is an inveterate, serial liar.

Any doubts as the veracity of that statement can be removed here:

http://www.delawaretomorrow.com/christine-odonnell-errors-mistakes-smears-and-thug-politics/

And here:

http://www.delawaretomorrow.com/christine-odonnell-why-are-we-learning-the-truth-now/

Posted by: WhateverHeSaid | September 28, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

I'm having trouble believing that Jake could have possibly graduated from Stanford Law
-----------------------------
let's follow Jake's example:

1. Maybe he graduated, but did he attend?

2. Maybe Stanford Law is not the same as Stanford Law School.

3. Maybe there is a town named Stanford and there is a street called Law. How about that?

4. Where's the lie. It coulda happened even if it didn't.

TAKEAWAY--Jake is a LAWYER lecturing us about LYING! GET IT?????????????????

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 28, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Why would she even put a one month course on her resume if she didn't like the way "Oxford" looked on her CV?

Posted by: nisleib | September 28, 2010 4:12 PM

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Oh, I get it. She has multiple tax liens, not a single lien, so she didn't lie when she said she didn't have a (A) tax lien.

Whatever happened to "I'd never lie because God will always provide a way to tell the truth". God must be a lawyer then, because I never heard so much BS.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 28, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

WhateverHeSaid:

If you don't want to answer my questions to you, that's fine with me. Have a nice life : )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues:

As you well know, I am the Devil's Advocate and (whether you like it or not) saying "There wasn’t even a tax lien" because there are multiple tax leins is not a lie.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

I am the Devil's Advocate
-----------------------
And, with that, Jake, you get the last word.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 28, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Maybe she didn't know the difference. After all, she was in a room at Oxford University, so that must mean she was educated there, right?

And Claremont Graduate School sounds a lot like the Claremont Institute, which is where she really attended (I don't believe the verb "educated" is appropriate for what happens at the Claremont Institute.)

Come on. She's not very bright. Cut her some slack.

Posted by: dpc2003 | September 28, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

For those who don't know, during the canonization process of the Roman Catholic Church, the Promoter of the Faith (Latin: promotor fidei), popularly known as the Devil's Advocate (Latin: advocatus diaboli), was a canon lawyer appointed by Church authorities to argue against the canonization of the candidate. It was his job to take a skeptical view of the candidate's character, to look for holes in the evidence, to argue that any miracles attributed to the candidate were fraudulent, etc. The Devil's Advocate opposed God's Advocate (Latin: advocatus Dei; also known as the Promoter of the Cause), whose task is to make the argument in favor of canonization. This task is now performed by the Promoter of Justice (promotor iustitiae), who is in charge of examining how accurate is the inquiry on the saintliness of the candidate.

The office was established in 1587 during the reign of Pope Sixtus V and abolished by Pope John Paul II in 1983. In cases of controversy, the Vatican may still seek to informally solicit the testimony of critics of a candidate for canonization. The British born American columnist Christopher Hitchens was famously asked to testify against the beatification of Mother Teresa in 2002, a role he would later describe as being akin to "representing the Evil One, as it were, pro bono". 12BarBlues knows all about this, though, from her time at CCD and The Fix.

In common parlance, the Devil's Advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, just for the sake of argument. In taking such position, the individual taking on the Devil's Advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure, and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position. For instance, in this case, no one has PROVEN that Christine O'Donnell has "lied" about her studies at the University of Oxford.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Hahaha.. 12BarBlues said it right. Jake admits to being and advocate for SATAN.

Posted by: dpc2003 | September 28, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Jake, that's only according to some BS you looked up on the web. I reject your attempt to confuse the issue: you said it, and it's true. You advocate for Satan.

Posted by: dpc2003 | September 28, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues: As you well know, I am the Devil's Advocate and (whether you like it or not) saying "There wasn’t even a tax lien" because there are multiple tax leins is not a lie.

So if I say someone committed various crimes, they really didn't commit a crime?

Duh.

Posted by: luckyoldson | September 28, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

O'Donnell fudges education history again

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

That very funny again, because the liberal Educational System fudges history all the time TOO!

Posted by: theaz | September 28, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

@luckyoldson,

I'm on your side. The person who made that outrageous claim was JakeD2, not me.

Just defending my reputation, old son.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 28, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Not only can Jake defend the liar. He can also play 3 card monte. "Look--let's talk about the Devil's Advocate...and forget about this Christine person...Christine Who?"

Bwahahaha!!!!!!!!!!

Give it up jake. You SHOULD have more pride than this.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 28, 2010 5:22 PM | Report abuse

I took a couple of courses at the Claremont Graduate School. It was many years ago, but I seem to recall that all you need to do is pay the tuition and you can take a course. You don't need an undergrad degree, and many undergrads from other schools attend class there. The classes are very easy. Nonetheless, given her track record, if O'Donnell posted it, I assume there is something incorrect or misleading about her claim.

Posted by: Renu1 | September 28, 2010 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Another Republican whack job fudging facts again??? I'm shocked!

Posted by: abigsam | September 28, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

On job applications they often inquire if an applicant has ever been convicted of a felony.

If one answers "no" - solely based on the fact that they have been convicted of several felonies, not just one - what do you think the chances are they would be hired?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 28, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

@renu,

Christine did not attend Claremont Graduate University. She "attended" (we're not quite sure what she did there) Claremont Institute. Seems she likes to change Institute to University. Wonder why?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 28, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Better look at her bio here before she sanitizes it.

http://www.linkedin.com/in/christineodonnell

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 28, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

WhateverHeSaid:

If you don't want to answer my questions to you, that's fine with me. Have a nice life : )

Posted by: JakeD2

________________________________________

You're a dissembler and none-too-bright -- as I remember from previous days of you being ridiculed on these forums.

You asked for an example of Christine O'Donnell lying. You were given two.

Unable to deny either, you want to wander off down some meaningless path of your choosing.

Sorry, Festus, but I know your game too well.

You have nothing of interest or value to contribute and will simply continue to waste everyone's time.

Not mine, however.

Posted by: WhateverHeSaid | September 28, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

luckyoldson:

No, that Venn diagram does not work in obverse. A more comparable analogy would be if I committed four crimes and I therefore (honestly) say "I haven't committed a crime." Similar to the Samaritan woman at the well who claimed: "I have no husband."

Let me know if you have any more questions : )

12BarBlues:

So much for me getting the last word.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

savetherainforest wrote>>>This whole issue is ridiculous - thinking back, I have no idea who actually RAN the summer programs I attended.

Well, before you hop into a senate race - better find out the details.

Posted by: angie12106 | September 28, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Jake: as a lawyer you know perfectly well that O'Donnell's claim is deceptive, even if it is literally true, because no one reads a resume as physical locations at which one was present while studying something. Education: Yale means Yale educated you, not that you studied how to cook a burger from the local fast food place renting Yale kitchen space. she would be convicted of fraud in a heartbeat

Posted by: JoeT1 | September 28, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues:

So much for me getting the last word.
----------------------------------
I gave you the LAST word, just a single word, not a whole bunch of words. Isn't that how it works, Shylock? Right? Right?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 28, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

I see a Holiday Inn Express ad out of this.

Posted by: rjma1 | September 28, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

She's post-modern. Truth is a construct.

Posted by: rusty3 | September 28, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

WhateverHeSaid:

I asked someone else for an example, not you -- your two, unsolicited examples have nonetheless been dealt with above -- by all means, though, please stop "wasting time" with me, as I said, have a nice life : )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Posted by JakeD2:

"I can't wait until she takes the Biden seat ;"

HAHAHAHAHA!!!

I hope you're not holding your breath.

O'Donnell has only a slightly better chance of being elected Senator than me. And I have no chance at all.

She got fully 16% of the registered vote in the primary and is still lagging way back in the polls. Her disapproval rating is standing at 50% and even with her $2.6 million war chest she is going to have a hard time overcoming that hurdle. Her kooky pronouncements on monkeys and mice and other things she apparently knows absolutely nothing about, notwithstanding, I am betting that with at least 40% of those who voted for Castle saying they would not vote for her, she has already gotten most of the votes she is going to get and that her activated base has already voted for her.

If I were a journalist I would be doing an in depth story on Fairleigh Dickinson University to find out how someone could get a degree there and still be so stupid.

I would also investigate that Constitutional Government claim to see what was supposedly taught. Anyone who thinks that the Constitution precludes appointing people termed "czars" because that is bestowing a title of nobility on them obviously has a perverted understanding of both the Constitution and Government!

A senatorial candidate basing their knowledge of either on the claims of Glenn Beck also shows a lack of intellectual acumen that is disquieting at best and certainly unbecoming a candidate for the U.S. Senate.

Given all this as I said, I hope you are not holding your breath.

Maybe in your case I'll amend that!!!

Posted by: Prakosh | September 28, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2 and others of his ilk are exactly what is wrong with America today. Ignoring the fact that the author took great pains to avoid calling O'Donnell what she truly is, a liar, JakeD2 would have you believe that this is the fault of the "libs". Yes, it was us Liberals who forced O'Donnell to lie about graduating from Fairleigh Dickinson University in 1993 although she didn't graduate until this past summer. It was us Liberals who forced her to claim she was taking graduate courses at Princeton even before she had her undergraduate degree. And it was us Liberals who forced her to dabble in witchcraft, believe evolution happens right before our eyes and that there are mice running around with human brains. All of these 'misleading' and ignorant comments and ideas are the result of us Liberals. It isn't O'Donnell's fault. The CONServatives have never done anything to damage America in any way. They had nothing to do with trashing our economy, our relationships with other countries and they certainly had nothing to do with invading 2 countries, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and sacrificing thousands of American troops. It is all the fault of the Liberals. JakeD2 and people like him are the reason we need to take O'Donnell seriously. In a world where politicians are judged by whether or not they lie to the public and whether or not their policies will benefit a small select group of people or the majority of Americans, then O'Donnell would be the joke she really is. Unfortunately people like JakeD2 easily justify her lies and ignorance by blaming the Liberals. This is their justification for all the damage people like O'Donnell have done to America and their justification for voting for someone like O'Donnell who is clearly not qualified to be the local dog catcher, as Rove said. As long as JakeD2 and his kind are allowed to vote the rest of us who really love our country and want the best and brightest working for us in DC must get out to the voting booths on November 2nd and VOTE OUT THE GOP. The Republicans, especially this batch of right wing nut jobs, are a clear and present danger to the USA. Unless they are stopped in November the GOP will continue with their failed policies until the middle class is completely destroyed. If you love America then you must vote for the Democrats in November. Never before has the difference between the right and left been more pronounced. This election is about the haves and have nots. The intelligent and the ignorant. The party for the people and the party for the corporations. America cannot afford to elect a bunch of ignorant haves who want the corporations to take over and destroy our middle class. The only hope we have for our future is to elect Democrats in November. Then hope the GOP gets the message that their failures do come back to haunt them. And if they ever want to return to being a viable party they need to start paying attention to the other 98%

Posted by: FreedomFreedom | September 28, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

The ONLY way Jake can get anyone to talk to him is to defend Christine-the-liar. Man, you are sinking real low just to get some responses. You SHOULD have more pride than this.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 28, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

She's a lying wench. If Delaware elects her, they'll be the laughingstock of the nation.

Posted by: TwoTermObama | September 28, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Word.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Even before the latest lie was revealed, Republican pollster Scott Rasmussen reported:

"The Delaware race is now viewed as Solid Democrat in the Rasmussen Reports Election 2010 Senate Balance of Power rankings. This marks a remarkable turnaround in a race that at the beginning of the month was rated Solid Republican and was on track to be a GOP pickup."

Posted by: WhateverHeSaid | September 28, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Oh, GOOD!

As a scumbagger I would have NEVER voted for anybody with any sort of edu-ma-cation!

Hey, bertram, break out the 'shine, thar's nuttin' to worry about!

Posted by: BattleOffSamar | September 28, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Oh, Jake, jake, am I getting on your nerves?

Wait--you don't have to answer that. Bwahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 28, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Couldn't the silly girl at least learn to tell an accurate lie (excuse the oxymoron, please)? Or is she too stretched using campaign funds to pay her personal bills to hire a copy editor? There is no University of Oxford in England (I'm not sure about the similarly named institutions in the US). It's Oxford University.

Posted by: MaineWoman | September 28, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

I have an idea, jake. You hang around this thread and try, try, try to get the last word. Christine NEEDS you, man. Keep yo' eyes peeled for the enemy, son.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 28, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

And I lived in the White House. I took a tour there, and I was living at the time, so there!

Jake2D, O'Donnell is most definitely trying to piggyback off of Oxford's reputation by stating, under Education, that she received some education from the University of Oxford. Which she did not.

Posted by: hitpoints | September 28, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

When you list a school under "education" it is implied that the school listed educated you. This is common sense.

I work in Academia, I attend seminars on different campuses all the time. Do I list them under "education" on Linked-In? No, because they did not educate me. They provided a location.

My university rents out space to summer camps and all sorts of groups over the summer, including a cheerleading camp for middle school girls. Can those 12 year olds list the university under their "education" because they spent a summer on campus attending something run by a non-University group? Of course not.

There is no way one can argue that doing something on the campus of the school justifies you listing that school under education. THAT SCHOOL DID NOT EDUCATE YOU.

Posted by: Nylund154 | September 28, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

DouglasK1 said:

"How would it help get us out of this recession if we reduce consumer spending by $70 billion because those consumers have incomes over $200,000?"

If it were true then perhaps you would have a point. However, it has been determined without a doubt, that the wealthy do NOT spend their tax bonuses. They save it in order to increase their wealth. If you were truly interested in getting the economy going then you would be all for expanding food stamps, unemployment insurance, SSI payments and other programs that provide assistance to those who are truly in NEED. These people actually do SPEND this money and by spending it they help everyone. The wealthy on the other hand are not interested in helping anyone but themselves. People like you have convinced them that it is our privilege to have them living in America and there is no reason they should have to pay their FAIR SHARE of taxes. No, you believe we should pay THEM to live here despite the fact that it has been proven WITHOUT A DOUBT that tax cuts for the wealthy do NOT create jobs. And this study was not done by some Liberal think tank. This was done by Moody’s Analytics Inc, a bastion of the oligarchy. Following all of the tax cuts, Bush's two and the 1993 tax cut by Clinton, the savings rate for the richest Americans skyrocketed.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-13/rich-americans-save-money-from-tax-cuts-instead-of-spending-moody-s-says.html

It's too bad the Republicans, Tea Party and other right wingers in America cannot be honest with themselves or America. The facts are there but the right wing has no problem ignoring the truth when it doesn't fit their agenda. Give the right enough time and the freedom to do to America what it wants and before long America will be unrecognizable. There will be no more middle-class, the wealthy will be deciding how much to pay the workers since the GOP will do away with a minimum wage, the tax rates will be 12% across the board and there will be a federal sales tax. No more Social Security, no more Medicare or Medicaid and no more government regulations for energy, finance or health insurance. The EPA and Dept of Education will be disbanded and the military will be policing our cities since the police departments and fire departments will be shut down for lack of funding. Public education will see class sizes of 75 children and only the wealthy will be able to afford to properly educate their children. If you think this scenario is impossible take note of the number of CONServatives who will embrace it here. America is at a cross-roads that will decide whether we crumble or expand as a society. If the right wing has their way and the top 10% are enriched while the other 90% are ignored then we can count these as our last days as a great nation. For America to survive we must remove the far right from politics and insist that the wealthy pay their fair share. America cannot afford welfare for the oligarchy.

Posted by: FreedomFreedom | September 28, 2010 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Does Christine O'Donnell actually have an "IQ"?

Posted by: alannahrayne | September 28, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Talk about splitting hairs. Did she take the course? Yes. Are the Delaware Democrats scared to death? Yes

Posted by: sportsfan2 | September 28, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse

MaineWoman,

Actually, there is a University of Oxford in England. You can look it up. That is the correct, formal name for "Oxford University."

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 28, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Does Christine O'Donnell actually have an "IQ"? Would it be unconstitutional to recommend that no persons with an "IQ" under 130 can run for any elected position? We need help in this country!

Posted by: alannahrayne | September 28, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Jake, you sound like you want to be O'Donnell's lawyer. It is obvious that you're no more believable than she is.
I also can't help but wonder how successful your practice is if you've got this much time on your hands.
You can't see that she's a liar because lying is apparently what you do for a living. And yes, I have law degree myself, so I know a little bit about lying lawyers. Every lawyer lies, or at least fudges & spins the truth. That's why we get paid, like it or not.
At the very least, O'Donnell's resume padding is unethical & misleading, as I'd hope you would know. I feel sorry for your clients. Then again, I can imagine the type of clients you have--white-collar criminals, anyone?

Posted by: nyskinsdiehard | September 28, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Oxford, Georgia maybe.

Posted by: TEXDEM | September 28, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Well that's just how the volunteer who put together the campaign literature characterized it. Seems silly to make an issue of something that has nothing to do with cutting taxes or restoring honor. It's just more of the same smear campaign.

Posted by: blasmaic | September 28, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

@JakeD2
> I'm still not sure where the "lie" is on this one.

Seek counselling.

Posted by: terry-the-censor | September 28, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Tee-hee....you guys, c'mon....she meant to say she was educated IN Oxfords, you know, those lace up boxy shoes? C'mon, she was only 30 years old at the time....Who hasn't made such a slip up at age 30????

Posted by: nana4 | September 28, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

>>Good catch, Greg!

I take it that you see O'Donnell as a real threat?REAL threat.

Posted by: lokidog | September 28, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Two out of three Delaweenies deserve her.

Posted by: whocares666 | September 28, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

TO: sportsfan2 who wrote:
“Talk about splitting hairs. Did she take the course? Yes. Are the Delaware Democrats scared to death? Yes.”

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You continue to over-rate yourselves.

I don't think you can actually surprise anybody anymore of how dumb your selected politicians are.


Posted by: lindalovejones | September 28, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

>>Good catch, Greg!

I take it that you see O'Donnell as a real threat?<<

What that absurd question proves - and is most dangerous and destructive for this country - is just how much the rightwingers consider the truth (about anything) the REAL threat.

Posted by: lokidog | September 28, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

I have been told that monkeys are watching to see if Christine O'Donnell will evolve with some level of intelligence.

Posted by: brianhandel | September 28, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Delaware voters: how can you even CONSIDER voting for this liar?

Posted by: barber2525 | September 28, 2010 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Here's the scary thing: the rabid far rightwingers DON'T CARE. If it's THEIR person, they can lie all the want, commit adultery all they want, be as radical as they want, be as hypocritical as they want. NOTHING matters.

You've got JakeD2 on here parsing every word, looking for every loophole, even though the woman is caught dead to rights lying through her teeth, to his face (and everyone else's.)

If it's a Democrat? Obama? When it was Bill Clinton, people like this HOWLED when he said it depends what the definition of is, is.

The scariest thing of all about nuts like Jake? They're a small, small minority. But they're highly motivated, which means they will turn out to vote and we may actually get some of these wackos like O'Donnell and Rand Paul voted in.

God help us.

Posted by: donquixote3 | September 28, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

So, that means I played football at the University of Alabama.

I mean, it was a Saturday, and we were drinking beer and waiting for a game to start. We were throwing around a Nerf football. But, I mean, yeah, I guess I played football there. Maybe I should put that on my resume.

Posted by: cyb1851 | September 28, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

So, that means I played football at the University of Alabama.

I mean, it was a Saturday, and we were drinking beer and waiting for a game to start. We were throwing around a Nerf football. But, I mean, yeah, I guess I played football there. Maybe I should put that on my resume.

Posted by: cyb1851 | September 28, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

the Tea Party .... just like its big sister The Republican Party.... is the party of LIARS.

and the real shame is .. the right wing voters could care less because its turned them into LIARS as well.

its a shame. Goldwater and Ike must be rolling over in their graves

Posted by: jaaxelson | September 28, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

It is funny to read so many posts from serious people about Moron with no brains no Moral No Knowledge.
hell, let's do some useful work in stead of discussing moron who should not be hired even in convenion store to mop floors.
Give me a break, seriously.
Let's go back to work.

Posted by: lordmi | September 28, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Fact.
Lie or " exaggerate" on a resume or job application and the people in charge find out you can be disqualified for the position or fired. Everyone is quick to say politicians should be held to higher standards (though ill be the first to agree they are only human). Someone that activly campaigns on absolute truth no matter what should really watch their words a little closer. How could you not think people would be vetting you with a fine tooth comb and magnifying glass.

Posted by: nobu1 | September 28, 2010 6:54 PM | Report abuse

solsticebelle:

Don't worry, you don't have to answer my question. I just thought you'd want to see this (from the other thread) ...

"Given the negative reaction to those boos heard during last night’s telecast of Dancing With the Stars, the producers will go the extra mile during this evening’s telecast and show that the crowd was directing their disdain toward the judges, not the visiting Sarah Palin."

http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2010/09/28/dancing-with-the-stars-boos-werent-directed-at-sarah-palin-show-says/

LOL!!!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 6:55 PM | Report abuse

It's entirely plausible that this right wing genius "studied at Oxford." After all, Palin, the half-term governor of Alaska, claimed to be a foreign policy expert by virtue of the fact that she said she could actually see Russia from her trailer park. Let's give these brilliant Tea Baggers the benefit of the doubt.

Posted by: vztownes | September 28, 2010 6:58 PM | Report abuse

I went to Williams for 4 years.

Williams was the last name of my barber.

Posted by: dionysianmadness | September 28, 2010 6:58 PM | Report abuse

The headline IS misleading: JakeD2 may be correct about this one thing. The headline says something the page they are quoting doesn't say. She just posts her education. But she implies in the posting that she took a class called "Postmodernism in the New Millennium" (does anyone here know what the new millennium refers to?) and by just placing "University of Oxford" above it as she has, she is implying that the class was offered and approved by the University of Oxford not that she "studied" at the University of Oxford.

And therein lies the lie! The class was unconnected to the University of Oxford was taught and graded by people associated with Phoenix Institute, which is according to this own website: "a meeting point for people who believe that the truth and goodness that lies in the heart of the Western Tradition should be understood, affirmed and promoted as the best possible foundation for the future development of our Civilization."

Ahhh--Manifest Destiny and all it portends for the poor uncivilized heathens around the globe. If you aren't westernized you haven't been saved...yet!

Since she had to pay her money to the Pheonix Institute and not to the University of Oxford it is hard to believe that she ever thought the class was associated with the University of Oxford unless of course she is lying. Perhaps like the rest of her tuition bills she never really paid for this class either, that might partially explain her confusion. Absolutely nothing else would.

In addition, plenty of people take all kinds of classes and never once study! Evidently that is what O'Donnell did in her science classes at Fairleigh Dickinson as well.

Her reading of Darwin is as confused as her reading of the Constitution. And she claims to be an English major.

Give me a break, she can't even read a menu!

Posted by: Prakosh | September 28, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

The fact that she lists it as "University of Oxford" should have been a dead giveaway: it's "Oxford University."

Posted by: thrh | September 28, 2010 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Unbelievable. Has she ever told the truth about ANYTHING in her life? She's probably lying about her name, too. She may not even be an American.

Posted by: wilder5121 | September 28, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Anybody going to check out PBO's education this closely? Anybody?

Didn't think so.

Posted by: waterfrontproperty | September 28, 2010 7:10 PM | Report abuse

That means my grandfather had a Yale education.

He was sort of a an average, run-of-the mill locksmith, and he knew a few things about Yale locks. So, he was Yale educated.

Thanks, Christine, for making this post possible.

Posted by: cyb1851 | September 28, 2010 7:10 PM | Report abuse

MaineWoman:

Are you still around? I'm kicking myself (figuratively) for missing your post.

cyb1851:

Well, thanks for the additional example -- I said the same thing about "studying" in the Yale and Princeton parking lot -- if you actually played (nerf) football at the University of Alabama, I'm not seeing the "lie". Maybe if you were under oath to tell the WHOLE truth, and someone asked a follow-up question: "Did you play on the football team?"

Look, I understand that non-lawyers don't get the specific point I am making. As clearly as I can say it, there is no PROOF of a "lie" (especially when the question being asked is answered truthfully). For instance, it is not up to the person being asked questions to suggest a "better" question that would elicit damaging testimony.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Republicans go for these lying, ignorant politicians, then they wonder why they have lying, ignorant politicians in Washington.


Posted by: lindalovejones | September 28, 2010 7:16 PM | Report abuse

cyb1851,

Your post reminds me of the old joke:

I just want all you blue bloods to know that I come from a a very good family. My family is in iron and steel.
-------------------------------

Yeah, your mother irons and your father steals.
-------------------------------

Christine will now enter the American comedy clubs with mouse/human brains, monkeys not evolving and "I went to Oxford".

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 28, 2010 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Hey I studied art at the Seattle Art Museum (SAM). I learned from the masters. I ate lunch with contemporary artists. I must be a great artist! Oh wait, I took the tour of the Roman Marble Statue art. I must have stood next to Alexander the Great.

But surely O'Donnell will best be remembered for her "association with witch craft." See http://www.fancydressoutfitters.co.uk/ for some awesome photos, no doubt taken with O'Donnell while studying in Great Britain - a monarchy occupying most of the British Isles -- in case you didn't attend one of those fancy Ivy League universities.

Posted by: rmorris391 | September 28, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

vztownes:

TINA FEY was the one who said "I can see Russia from my house" not Sarah Palin. Nice try though.

thrh:

The formal name for the group of colleges / halls is, in fact, University of Oxford. Check out their own web site ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Wow! Investigative journalism from the WAPO. Who would have believed it that they are finally trying to vette a candidate,

Oh, its a Republican ... and a woman, again.

Same old story here folks. The liberal DuPont Circle girly boys have their claws aout again.

YYyyaaaawwwwnnnnn. How about those Redskins??

Posted by: MDDem1 | September 28, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

"University of Oxford" (look at their seal, for Gawd's sake!)

http://www.ox.ac.uk/

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 7:21 PM | Report abuse

TINA FEY was the one who said "I can see Russia from my house" not Sarah Palin.
------------------------
Now, you know it was Tina Fey and I know it was Tina Fey. Do you ever wonder why everyone else believes it was Mrs. Palin? Do you? There is a reason.

Wait--you don't have to answer that.

Bwahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 28, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

wilder5121:

She's not "lying" about raising over $2.7 million in order to defeat Coons ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 7:30 PM | Report abuse

You libs sure are stretching (I can't wait until she takes the Biden seat ; )
-----

Get a life, JakeD2. You're the one stretching it just as she's stretching her resume. She's creating a perception by omitting the details. "Well, I didn't say I graduated from that university - I 'went' there. I took a course on the campus." Puhhhh leeeeeeeeeeaze. What a flim-flam artist, not unlike her mentor/pal, Palin. Jeez.... can't we women field any qualified candidates, or are they all dingbats like these two morons?

Posted by: mooncusser | September 28, 2010 7:36 PM | Report abuse

She's not "lying" about "There wasn’t even a tax lien.”

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Vice President Joe Biden is a crude, boorish plagiarist and you Post guys get your panties in a was about a republican candidate for the Senate. She must scare the hell out of you.

Good.

Posted by: Charley_XF | September 28, 2010 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Unbelievable Jake. If she was interviewing for a job at the Mariel you worked in might it raise a red flag if you were interviewing an applicant that embellished their resume (that is being kind) listing Oxford as a school they attended. How about Harvard, Princenton (oops she already did that) Yale, Stanford? You know you would throw her out on her keaster ,in a job interview if she came to you with that bs resume. Absolutey no one but you would defend that outrage. Yea right Oxford Community College. She is toast.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 28, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

this is hilarious.... so what? at least we can see her school records... unlike the Prez, who has locked up tight his entire background, and no one, not even with the "freedom of information act" can get to see just what Obama did in his school years, the libs are desparate, and no amount of innuendo or falsehoods is going to slow down the wave of unemployed Democrats leaving D.C. after November.

Posted by: commonsense1 | September 28, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Charley_XF:

They were able to use "Macaca" every day up until the election to bring that Republican down too.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Is it true that the course was given at the University of Oxford?
If yes, she is not lying and whether you think it misleading or not doesn't matter.

How's Alvin Greene's resume stacking up for you dems? Is he as upstanding a candidate as you have ever had? Or is he the one the dems want to ignore and want to disappear?

Posted by: justmyvoice | September 28, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

leichtman1:

You are more than welcome to PROVE that she lied (no one else has been able to yet). It's not my fault that she technically told the truth and you all jump to the wrong conclusions.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

justmyvoice:

It is indeed true ["... the Institute extended its programs to Europe where from 1996 to 2001 parallel summer courses were held at the University of Oxford (UK)."]

http://www.thephoenixinstitute.org/seminars/seminars_main.htm

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 8:00 PM | Report abuse

She's not "lying" about getting an education at the University of Oxford (even though it was "only" a summer course offered through the Phoenix Institute).

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

So, I ask you, barber2525:

To which "liar" are you referring? Obama carried Delaware in 2008.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 8:07 PM | Report abuse

So, let me get this straight, O'Donnell is making claims about her education that may not be true while for the past two years we have a President who claimed he would run the Presidency in a transparent way, but did not. He promised no new taxes for the middle class, but now we have all kinds of new little taxes. I guess it's OK to be deceptive after you get elected.

Posted by: nofreelunch | September 28, 2010 8:10 PM | Report abuse

As Clinton said, it depends on the definition of "is" or in this case, "at". Wow, she really embellished her resume with this course. Get some news in this suposedly reputable newspaper - leave this overblown crap for the supermarket rags.

You have Obama flat out lying about tax cuts, saved jobs, ObamaCare savings, etc,. etc. Charlie Rangle is up to his eyeballs in flagrant graft and ethics violations - but he's a liberal Democrat leader so he and his constituants get a pass for ignoring the obvious. Grow up - this isn't high school.

Posted by: JoeTH | September 28, 2010 8:11 PM | Report abuse

justmyvoice,

Try finding any Democrat on this site who will defend Alvin Greene's qualifications. I certainly won't defend him. He is a joke -- completely unqualified to serve in the U.S. Senate.

But you defend Christine O'Donnell for listing "University of Oxford" and "Claremont Graduate University" as "Education" when she did not take courses from those institutions. Have you ever been in the position of hiring someone? I have -- and no employer I know would accept the explanation you teabaggers are giving for her statements about her "education."

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 28, 2010 8:16 PM | Report abuse

BTW: WhateverHeSaid

You refused to answer my questions, so I never told you the WHOLE story -- in addition to my defense, above, the IRS has admitted the tax liens against Ms. O'Donnell were a “computer error.” During her previous campaign against then-Sen. Joe Biden, she was (by sheer coincidence of course) audited by the IRS. That's why I wanted to get you on the record about Paula Jones's IRS audit.

After a long appeals process, however, the issue was supposed to have been warpped up this past spring. Yet, in March, rather than a letter finalizing the appeals process, she received the erroneous tax liens claiming that she had not responded to previous correspondence. The IRS has since sent a letter clarifying that it was their mistake and issued a Certificate of Release of Federal Tax Lien on May 19, 2010. You can see both of those documents here:

http://christine2010.com/christine-counters/

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Peter: "I read a book about this once."
Brian: "Are you sure it was a book? Are you sure it wasn't nothing?"

Posted by: runfastandwin | September 28, 2010 8:23 PM | Report abuse

So what? We're supposed to discriminate and vote against unhinged, habitual liars, owing merely to one personality tick?

Posted by: jimsteinberg1 | September 28, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

bearclaw1:

She took a course AT the University of Oxford (or, as your D0UCHEBAGS insist it be called "Oxford University"). Just admit that she told the truth -- however misleading you think it may be -- then you can move on to the next alleged "lie".

Which I will be more than happy to debunk of course ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Barrack Obama claimed to have written a thesis (which is a typical requirement for a graduate degree) on nuclear disarmament.
According to snopes.com, Obama never produced a thesis for his degree.
He has never released other school records.
He was admitted in to Occidental, which is a small, expensive private school with very high admission standards.
Obama has admitted that he was a poor student, and spent the last two years in high school getting drunk and doing cocaine. How did Obama get in to Occidental? Since he won't release records, how do we know that he did go to Occidental. Sure, he says he was there, but he does lie a lot, so how can we know?
He claims to have majored in "International Affairs" as an undergrad, which is highly unlikely. It is even less likely, when you consider that his Columbia "degree" is in political science, not international affairs. He has stated that his time at Columbia was spent "buckling down", and that his time was mostly spent at the library. He graduated, without honors.
How do you graduate from Columbia without honors, and get accepted at Harvard Law?
Then, how did he get his position as Harvard Law president, only having written one short unimpressive legal paper in his life?

This guy was an affirmative action student,an affirmative action lawyer, (who gave up his license when it was discovered that he lied on his bar application) and an affirmative action Manchurian president.

....And the professional liars at WAPO are complaining about O'Donnells education claims.

That' rich

Posted by: MrMeaner | September 28, 2010 8:29 PM | Report abuse

gee, i'd like to know as much about the president. trouble is we can't find out anything.i don't want to see his birth cirtificate. i want to see his school records and whether he got loans or special treatment as a 'foreign student'. we will find out some day. i want to see his grades. i'd like to read some of his papers.it's like this guy came from outer space.

Posted by: 12thgenamerican | September 28, 2010 8:33 PM | Report abuse

bearclaw, would you hire the president knowing what you know about his education, which is nothing. hahahahaha.

Posted by: 12thgenamerican | September 28, 2010 8:37 PM | Report abuse

".t's like this guy came from outer space."

Are we talking about JakeD? He's from zouk. Didn't know zouk had a rainforest, did you?

Posted by: mattintx | September 28, 2010 8:40 PM | Report abuse

A lot of coverage on O'Donnell by WaPo.

All this hate and still she's raised a ton of money.

Posted by: grunk | September 28, 2010 8:40 PM | Report abuse

Are we talking about JakeD? He's from zouk. Didn't know zouk had a rainforest, did you?

Posted by: mattintx | September 28, 2010 8:40 PM
---------------------------------
The only person not here is zouk et al.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 28, 2010 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Jake,

She did not tell the truth. If she applied for a job at my firm with "University of Oxford" and "Claremont Graduate University" on her resume, but had completed no course work administered by those institutions, the application would be tossed as dishonest. If it was discovered after she was hired, she would be dismissed. The same is true of every employer I know.

12thgenamerican:

The President is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he was elected president of the Law Review. Hell yes I'd hire him.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 28, 2010 8:51 PM | Report abuse

Is it any wonder this charlatan has sworn off any and all t.v. or other interview programs. God forbid someone, anyone, might actually ask her questions that challenge the load of malarky she seems to cling to as reality. Please just make her go away.

Posted by: moonie_1 | September 28, 2010 8:54 PM | Report abuse

A lot of coverage on O'Donnell by WaPo.

All this hate and still she's raised a ton of money.

Posted by: grunk | September 28, 2010 8:40 PM | Report abuse

//////////////////////////////////////////

That really is hilarious she is a TEA partier candidate and a republican who has people all over the nation throwing money at her hoping to buy VP Bidens seat even when they know she is 15 points down in the polls and has been made a complete full of herself on SNL not that she needed any help just because they throw money at her does not mean she is electable

Posted by: mikey30919 | September 28, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

How unprecedented that the people that GOP and the reTHUGlicans want to run our government are liars,cheats, crooks and worst of all very incompetent, nice going AMERICA!!!

I rather have a very smart,compassionate and caring person for my politicians


Posted by: corintonic | September 28, 2010 9:00 PM | Report abuse

O'Donnell is an embarrassment to our country and to democracy. But consider Angle, Paul, Miller, Buck, Johnson, Raese, Paladino and Rubio. Is she any different than these extreme, whiny, cuckoo whackos? No. They get in, we go under.

Posted by: dudh | September 28, 2010 9:03 PM | Report abuse

MrMeaner,

Can you fit any more lies and obfuscations into one blog post?

(1) Obama didn't get a graduate degree from Columbia. So that lack of "thesis" is hardly an issue.

(2) He wouldn't have been eligible for Latin honors at Columbia, because he only attended for two years (he was at Occidental before that).

(3) The President of the Harvard Law Review is elected by the members. How is an election "affirmative action"?

(4) Law students have to write in order to get on the Law Review, but the main obligation once on law review is to produce the law review. The main feature of the law review is writing by legal scholars, edit by the members of the law review. Student writing is included, but the longstanding tradition of the Harvard Law Review is that student writing is unsigned.

You sound like a bitter unaccomplished white guy, angry at the President for daring to be both "non-white" and better than you.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 28, 2010 9:05 PM | Report abuse

She was down 15 one week ago.
One week later, she's down by 9.

This is going to be the victory that absolutely demoralizes leftists.
#8^D

Posted by: MrMeaner | September 28, 2010 9:11 PM | Report abuse

No matter what guffaws O'Donnell spews she is a piker compared to the current members of congress. (This pretty much includes both democrats and republicans.

Posted by: thehamptons1 | September 28, 2010 9:20 PM | Report abuse

MrMeaner,

Not that facts seem to be your strong point, but do you by any chance have a source for your claim that O'Donnell is now "down by 9"? Maybe something like an actual poll?

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 28, 2010 9:21 PM | Report abuse

Why wouldn't O'Donnell be seen as a threat?
Half the country is below average intelligence by definition (and represented in great numbers around here).
They've proven to be a powerful block, and have repeatedly voted to destroy themselves and all they hold dear.

After all, in a world with nothing but sane, well-educated, and visionary people, Dubya would have lost 121,069,054 to nothing in '04, if he even tried after losing 101,455,899 to nothing in 2000.

Posted by: DAMNEDGENTLEMEN | September 28, 2010 9:23 PM | Report abuse

"(1) Obama didn't get a graduate degree from Columbia. So that lack of "thesis" is hardly an issue."

He said that he wrote a thesis on nuclear disarmament. That's why it's an issue.
He also lied on his Ill. bar application, and had to relinquish his license
He lied, and you see no problem electing a proven liar as president, while making accusations over something as trivial as listing the host campus of a program she attended, in her bio.

Posted by: MrMeaner | September 28, 2010 9:24 PM | Report abuse

As one of my heroes Barry Goldwater once said, in a slightly different context, "Let's grow up, Conservatives!"
And thank you ever so much Tea Partiers for sticking us with this deadbeat, fibbing dimwit. How are you going to justify yourselves if Harry Reid keeeps his job by the margin of one seat? Real good job of "changing the people in Washington (DeMint)" that'll be!

Posted by: Labbymalone | September 28, 2010 9:25 PM | Report abuse

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/delaware/election_2010_delaware_senate

Posted by: MrMeaner | September 28, 2010 9:28 PM | Report abuse

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/delaware/election_2010_delaware_senate

Posted by: MrMeaner | September 28, 2010 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Butch Graves says in his book "How to Succeed in Business Without Being White"; anything that can be proven otherwise on your resume is a lie.

Posted by: Micaroni715 | September 28, 2010 9:32 PM | Report abuse

http://tinyurl.com/35g3p95
Latest poll

Posted by: MrMeaner | September 28, 2010 9:32 PM | Report abuse

What's your problem, Sargent?
Are you such a wimp, you won't even let me post?

Posted by: MrMeaner | September 28, 2010 9:35 PM | Report abuse

OK, I'll apologize for that one, Sargent.
I guess it was teh interwebz.

Posted by: MrMeaner | September 28, 2010 9:43 PM | Report abuse

"She's not a viable candidate for any office in the state of Delaware. She could not be elected dog catcher." ~ Delaware state Republican party chairman Tom Ross

Posted by: WhateverHeSaid | September 28, 2010 9:43 PM | Report abuse

SHE'S AN OUTRIGHT LIAR...

this woman is like plutonium.

the tea-baggers are such imbeciles for nominating her.

she is a real dolt.

i bet if you ask her questions about religion she will fail that too.

she's a frankenstein fraud.

Posted by: FranknErnest | September 28, 2010 9:49 PM | Report abuse


Isn't Mister Meaner well-named?

Let's ask him how he and the other conservatives are going to PAY FOR THEIR BUSH WARS.

I chase these folk all over, asking them, but none have the guts to answer. They must be embarrassed that those draft-dodging cowards in the White House scared them into sending our sons and daughters to kill, maim, burn to death, shoot, and blast apart the sons and daughters and fathers and mothers of others, with no idea whatever what that does to OUR OWN SONS AND DAUGHTERS!!

Teabaggers took their name because TaxWhiners was already taken.

Posted by: gkam | September 28, 2010 10:01 PM | Report abuse

I love it - O'Donnell "fudges" her education history - why is everyone so timid? Call a liar a liar, for God sake. Why is everyone dancing around this?
O'Donnell is a LIAR.
Or is it OK for "values" voters if a candidate is a LIAR as long as they toe the conservative line????

Posted by: jeffc6578 | September 28, 2010 10:07 PM | Report abuse

This ten watt bulb comes with a dimmer switch on her forehead.

Posted by: Bridge3263 | September 28, 2010 10:08 PM | Report abuse

The Post publishes blatant attack pieces on their front page under the guise of "Post Politics".

Note to the Post: Reporting on politics doesn't give your "journalists" free reign to inject their own bias into stories.

Posted by: diehardlib | September 28, 2010 10:09 PM | Report abuse

"Let's ask him how he and the other conservatives are going to PAY FOR THEIR BUSH WARS."

Permanent tax cuts on the wealthy, lowering the corporate tax rates, slashing regulations that cost US businesses 1.75 trillion dollars per year,
http://jan.ocregister.com/2010/09/24/federal-rules-cost-u-s-firms-1-75-trillion/45704/
.. and cutting about half of federal positions.
My spending would come in the form of an unemployment package for the displaced govt. workers, that would only be needed for a short time, due to the avalanche of private investment that would create an unprecedented level of job creation.

Posted by: MrMeaner | September 28, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse


The point everyone is that this woman will and have lied in regard to just about everything about herself. And maybe everyone else.

Posted by: insightquest | September 28, 2010 10:25 PM | Report abuse

.. and cutting about half of federal positions.
-------------------
Really, that's what you'd do?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 28, 2010 10:26 PM | Report abuse

I'm glad those that point the finger of guilt are clean as the new fallen snow....


According to the people familiar with the record of the 44-year-old Senator from Delaware, he was called before the disciplinary body at the law school during his first year because of charges that he had committed plagiarism on a paper. Mr. Biden entered the school in 1965 and graduated in 1968.

an aide to Mr. Biden as saying he had been exonerated. However, an academic official said Mr. Biden had been found guilty, "threw himself on the mercy of the board" and promised not to repeat the offense. This, according to the official, persuaded the board to drop the matter and allow Mr. Biden to remain in law school. Mr. Biden's office declined to clarify the circumstances surrounding the case, saying the Senator had insisted on handling the matter himself at the news conference. [....]


Unsurprisingly, the New York Times article actually downplays the Kinnock plagiarism. For Mr. Biden didn’t just plagiarize his words, he plagiarized his life.


Biden’s way with words now seems to be a liability
JOHN HARWOOD
Sep 20, 1987

… But it was just last month that Biden appropriated an inspirational speech by British Labor leader Neil Kinnock. Kinnock told of ancestors who played football after long days underground in the mines, who recited poetry poetry and paved the way for him to become the first in his family to attend college.

When he saw a tape of Kinnock in action, Biden said Thursday, “it was a connect. I mean, I could tell how that man felt. That’s how I feel.”


So he used(STOLE) it - changing the names but little else - at a debate last month in Iowa. But instead of crediting Kinnock, he told the audience he thought of it on the way to the debate…

Posted by: erodrik | September 28, 2010 10:30 PM | Report abuse

For those individuals who think this story will hurt O'Donnell in November's election is dead wrong....

O'Donnell's supporters don't read and the only News programs they watch is 'Fox Noise.'

Besides all that learning just gets in the way of common sense!!!!

Posted by: WVUWEIRTON | September 28, 2010 10:38 PM | Report abuse

Really, that's what you'd do?

Sure would...if not more.

First, I would rid us of those agencies/employees/regulations responsible for that 1.75 trillion per year.
I would completely eliminate the Dept. of Education. Our student ranking among the other countries of the world have dropped steadily since it's creation under Carter.
I would strip most non-essential domestic agencies down to a bare minimum, and would probably reduce most to small offices in the Interior Dept.
Then I would probably go on a really cool vacation

Posted by: MrMeaner | September 28, 2010 10:38 PM | Report abuse

So how many people would be laid off?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 28, 2010 10:41 PM | Report abuse

This woman sounds more and more like a pathological liar. And I mean the kind who just enjoy making up false realities to impress people out of insecurity about who they really are. So far from what I've read, she's following the classic profile:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudologia_fantastica

If this is the kind of "vetting" tea partiers make of their candidates, God help America if they vote for any of them - Angle, Paul, Miller, whoever. Who knows what anti-social tendencies lurk in the rest of them.

Posted by: B2O2 | September 28, 2010 10:50 PM | Report abuse

Lots
Probably a mil and a half.
No worse than the job loss we've suffered over the last couple of years.
But it would be short-lived, because there would be investment pouring in from around the world.
But we're in a race with our competitors, who are already taking similar, albeit smaller measures.
They know it works.

Posted by: MrMeaner | September 28, 2010 10:54 PM | Report abuse

I would completely eliminate the Dept. of Education. Our student ranking among the other countries of the world have dropped steadily since it's creation under Carter.

Posted by: MrMeaner | September 28, 2010 10:38 PM | Report abuse

#######################################

Using that fine logic, why don't you eliminate the Defense Department? Our military standing in the world has been dropping since Bush was president.

Posted by: maggots | September 28, 2010 10:57 PM | Report abuse

Where would this global investment come from, that is, in addition to current investments?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 28, 2010 10:58 PM | Report abuse

The problem is, there is no current investment, other than borrowed govt. investment that just seems to be geared toward growing revenue-draining government employment.
If we remove the obstacles that cost US business almost two trillion dollars per year, and lower the tax burden on those anxious people sitting on the sidelines with all of the cash, who are looking for some place secure to begin growing their capital, you won't have any problem replacing the govt. jobs that I would eliminate...and would replace the jobs lost in the recession, in short order.
For a population our size, we should average 160K new jobs per month, just to keep pace. We're talking about an amount of workers equal to 9 months worth of average job creation.
Not that big of a task, considering what we've already lost.

Posted by: MrMeaner | September 28, 2010 11:14 PM | Report abuse

What are the barriers to foreign investment? Isn't it foreign investment that is key to your assumptions?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 28, 2010 11:15 PM | Report abuse

Business regulation, and tax rates.
They're even more important, since we have to compete with economies ran by governments who allow slave labor.
If we can attract a decent amount of industrial investment, China becomes less important...especially if we eliminate our future govt. liabilities, which just finances their dominance.

Posted by: MrMeaner | September 28, 2010 11:24 PM | Report abuse

Are you talking about foreign investment? Wouldn't you think that foreign investment would come from China? Where else would it come from?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 28, 2010 11:28 PM | Report abuse

I'm talking about foreign and domestic sources of investment.
We have many Americans who are invested in China, because it is just too difficult and expensive to do business here.
There are free-market capitalists all over the world, who just want to be able to have some certainty...to be able to look a few years in the future, and say "My investment will be safe here". If you're looking at this govt. as an investor, you see a leader who seems to wake up every day with a new plan to regulate some industry, and who has a penchant for wanting to punish the wealthy.
Why wouldn't you just keep your money in China?

Posted by: MrMeaner | September 28, 2010 11:41 PM | Report abuse

I am an investor in China. What I'm interested in, and I am interested, in how to attract foreign investment here.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 28, 2010 11:43 PM | Report abuse

I would think that China might be very interested in investing in our raw resources--industrial metals, oil & gas for example.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 28, 2010 11:47 PM | Report abuse

Right you are
That's exactly why they are content to let us fund ourselves out of existence, while owing them everything we have.
Of course, we could join the rest of the world, and begin consuming and exporting our resources.
But that would just increase the odds of our economic sustainability. I don't think our leaders want that.

Posted by: MrMeaner | September 28, 2010 11:56 PM | Report abuse

I recently attended a Gordon research conference at Salve Regina University. It would be a lie if I listed SRU on my CV under education. Oxford and Cambridge are both lovely universities. I enjoyed my visits to both of them.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | September 28, 2010 11:56 PM | Report abuse

I see it just like funding a business. You either fund through debt or equity or both. China is more than willing to loan us a lot of money for very modest returns. Can they be persuaded to ALSO invest in equity, with all the attendant risks and larger returns? So far, I don't see Chinese investment in equity here. Do you?

I'm just using China as an example. One could also add India.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 29, 2010 12:00 AM | Report abuse

I wonder if that crack reporter that uncovered
the Oxfordgate Scandal is up to verifying other
personal documents such as birth certificates and drivers license as well as school records for some other public figures ?

Posted by: crazyworld2 | September 29, 2010 12:09 AM | Report abuse

We're not dealing with governments, when it comes to investments. We're dealing with individuals who want to prosper. There are no loyalties, when it comes to protecting your wealth, nor should there be.

Posted by: MrMeaner | September 29, 2010 12:09 AM | Report abuse

I don't know exactly what you are saying. If we want Chinese investment in equity here, we'll have to deal somewhat with their government. That's how it works there.

India, not so much. As far as I know.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 29, 2010 12:14 AM | Report abuse

Does this mean I can cite my letters to the editor printed in Penthouse as publications?

Posted by: kuvasz | September 29, 2010 12:15 AM | Report abuse

No Chinese company of the stature we would want to attract is going to come over here without the full approval and cooperation of their government.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 29, 2010 12:16 AM | Report abuse

Yeah.
We're probably not going to attract much investment from the Chinese government, unless it's for more govt. spending on our part. And in that case, it's more of an investment in our defeat, than for economic returns.
But we may get investment from those who are currently invested in China.
Something has to change the game, and the change most beneficial to us, would be a radical austerity measure in the US.

Posted by: MrMeaner | September 29, 2010 12:26 AM | Report abuse

Oh, I think China would be very interested in investing in our oil. They're going around the world looking for oil reserves to tie up.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 29, 2010 12:35 AM | Report abuse

Why not allow American oil companies to expand production?
Aren't we supposed to be striving toward independence from ME oil?
It would add more jobs, and mean more in revenue, which would help pay down the debt

Posted by: MrMeaner | September 29, 2010 12:41 AM | Report abuse

I don't care about Ms O'Connell one way or the other. Phoenix Institute gave a course within the confines of Oxford. They no doubt played up the courses' location and never said it was "rented" space. I am not sure how much a student would know about the arrangements between the two institutions. If she got a certificate I wonder if the name of Oxford was on it. If I took a course at Harvard I might say I took a course at Harvard. The lectures at the Oxford course were from Oxford and Cambridge instructors paid by Phoenix. Phoenix Institute was probably fudging its affiliation so it could charge Oxford prices for the course.

Posted by: Gorbud1 | September 29, 2010 1:17 AM | Report abuse

In her case, "studied at Oxford" means she spent some time shining shoes.

Posted by: mehrenst1 | September 29, 2010 3:06 AM | Report abuse

Insane. And the GOP want O'Donnell to be a leader? Thank God. Citizens need an example of an insane leader picked by Palin. Sarah Palin handed the GOP Christine O'Donnell on a silver platter. Karl Rove warned you. I never - Never - never thought I would say this, but Republicans should have listened to Karl Rove. Thanks to Christine O'Donnell, GOP leaders have lost their chance at winning the majority in Congress. They are spending money like mad to try to save O'Donnell from herself, but the truth about Christine is flowing faster than the ink at Rockerfeller Center as writers of Saturday Night Live find new material based on "facts" about O'Donnell. Mötley Crüe said it best from a song off their 1989 album Dr. Feelgood "Don't Go Away Mad, Just Go Away"

Thomas Chi
Author
Selling Sex with Sarah Palin

Posted by: thomaschiinc | September 29, 2010 3:43 AM | Report abuse

I literally have studied academic subjects at M.I.T. and Harvard. I did not however attend either school as a student. I would never make a claim like she did on her resume. Why? Because if I did I would be lying.

The GOP has become the party of no brains.
This invites comparisons to zombies, and it should.

Posted by: Nymous | September 29, 2010 5:05 AM | Report abuse

As an aside, HTTPS encrypted comments? I am duly impressed! My compliments to the Post's IT people for this.

Posted by: Nymous | September 29, 2010 5:07 AM | Report abuse

Greg,

Did you fact-check O'Donnell's claims about her degree at Fairleigh Dickinson? Is she correct or not? Did she fulfill the academic requirements for the degree in 1993 and walk with the other graduates at that time?

In your piece, you leave the impression she is not correct.

Posted by: BrianConner | September 29, 2010 5:16 AM | Report abuse

Hey ..You've had 3 years to look into Obama's educational background..I DARE YOU TO DO IT, The MSM has been his lapdog since day one.

Posted by: omstrat | September 29, 2010 5:52 AM | Report abuse

Hey ..You've had 3 years to look into Obama's educational background..I DARE YOU TO DO IT, The MSM has been his lapdog since day one.

Posted by: omstrat | September 29, 2010 5:53 AM | Report abuse

Just the thought that anyone...regardless of partylines would vote for this shamster self important witch is beyond me.

I studied at University of Yale the backsides of babes:)

Posted by: stillmadmatt | September 29, 2010 6:17 AM | Report abuse

Fox news has been attacking a dem candidate for the same thing...think they will report this?

Posted by: LightSnowOvernight | September 29, 2010 7:07 AM | Report abuse

As a Brit who is interested in American politics, could someone please answer this question for me: what would it take for some of this lady's supporters to finally accept that they are backing the wrong horse?
It seems to me as if thye are proud to be following someone who is leading the race to the bottom.
She could be representing Delaware in the Senate and the US in the International arena. She will embarrass both. NOT she might, not she could - you dont have to be a fortune teller to see that she WILL embarrass both.

on this side of the pond, i vote for the Conservative party. so, i can be broadly defined as being right of centre politically. to some of o'Connell's supporters, i'm sure i would be viewed as a Socialist.

the sad thing is that by the time that they realise that backing anyone who has extreme right wing views irrespective of their broader levels of intelligence, honesty and integrity will untimately lead to less representaton in Congress.

the way to political change isnt by scoring a spectacular own goal and selecting the unelectable.

just my two pence worth....i await the opprobrium.

Posted by: OstendemihiPecuniam | September 29, 2010 7:10 AM | Report abuse

I hate the scumbag press. All this probing would be perfectly fine if not for the complete whitewash of obama's background leading up to his election.

Here we have all this probing of every word this woman has ever uttered with a fine toothed comb but we got NOTHING on anything obama ever did and in fact we got active disparagement of anybody who questioned anything about his background. We also get absolutely NOTHING about the utter kook she is running against.

Posted by: standard_guy | September 29, 2010 7:37 AM | Report abuse

This is great news for O'Donnell. She no longer has to win the election to add 'US Senator' to her resume - she can just rent a place on Capitol Hill!

Posted by: peter44 | September 29, 2010 7:54 AM | Report abuse

I'm sure Oxford is anxious to claim her as one of its esteemed alumni.

Posted by: MidwaySailor76 | September 29, 2010 7:59 AM | Report abuse

I studied the menu at a fish and chips shop in Oxford.

Posted by: willandjansdad1 | September 29, 2010 8:05 AM | Report abuse

Rationalization and word parsing in attempt to "prove" this political candidate's veracity are essentially a kind of dishonest thinking.

Posted by: LiveOakVA | September 29, 2010 8:36 AM | Report abuse

Jake-

She almost certainly lied knowingly. The "Education" section of any resume or similar document obviously refers to the accredited institution through which the courses studied are offered, not the physical location. Knowingly claiming that the institution in this case was Oxford is an outright lie.

Now, I saw 'almost certainly' because there is some slim chance that O'Donnell simply did not understand how a resume works, in which case she did not lie but is instead amazingly, radiantly stupid. Which of those do you prefer?

Posted by: scabby | September 29, 2010 8:53 AM | Report abuse

Hey, standard_guy, what did you do, sleep through the election?

Posted by: michiganmaine | September 29, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

MrMeaner: "We're probably not going to attract much investment from the Chinese government, unless it's for more govt. spending on our part. And in that case, it's more of an investment in our defeat, than for economic returns."

This is wrong. China does not want the US economy to fail. They depend on the US economy and cannot escape that dependence until they are able to generate enough internal demand to make up for exports. That is a long, long way off--probably decades. They invest in the US because they have to in order to keep the relationship going. Their savings rate has to be matched to a global savings deficit, and the US is the biggest generator of that savings deficit. Both sides play a role in generating this situation, and it isn't easy to break out of. But China surely does not want to destroy the US economy, it is what keeps their economy growing (we could simply note that the percentage of the GDP that is made up by consumer spending has been shrinking in China for many years). So your whole argument is wrong headed.

Posted by: michiganmaine | September 29, 2010 9:10 AM | Report abuse

for those that are not seeing O'Donnell's listing of Oxford University as a lie: when compiling a CV or education history (for professional or academic purposes) accuracy matters. to list Oxford (one of the world's most prestigious universities) is to say that you actually attended Oxford. considering that this course was not sponsored or offered by Oxford, to say that she attended Oxford is a lie. if she listed this on a graduate school application and it was investigated, her application would be rejected. it's intentionally misleading, which means it's false, which equals a lie. when considered in conjunction with her other misleading statements concerning her academic history, people should be very concerned about O'Donnell's credibility. she says she's willing to not lie to fascist thugs to protect innocent lives, but she seems willing to lie about her academic background. severe narcissism, it's only a lie when i say it's a lie.

Posted by: dromadika | September 29, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

what could she ever have studied at Oxford? it is a wonder she completed her undergraduate work at all...in what major

Posted by: fairness3 | September 29, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Both my children went to Stanford University. My 11 year old boy took video game programming classes for three weeks this summer at Stanford. My 15 year old daughter also attended a wonderful 3 week drama class workshop at Stanford. She even stayed in a dorm room and attended with kids from 5 countries and across the US.

Posted by: Sparkels | September 29, 2010 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Historical note for MrMeaner: Before Carter created the standalone Department of Education, there was the Cabinet-level Department of Health, Education and Welfare, created by Eisenhower. No doubt the schools have been plummeting downhill since then, too.

Hey, Sparkels, my son went to Stanford, too! Gosh, that'll look good on his resume if he ever applies to Stanford...

Posted by: JonquilSerpyllum | September 29, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Greg, your headline definitely catches attention. However, to moderate some of the "us-them" of US politics today (underscored in the comments to your piece), it would be of much greater service to fact-check O'Donnell's claims about her degree at Fairleigh Dickinson as BrianConner suggested. Stop the innuendo and planting of impressions and lets raise the dialogue to one of confirmed facts.

What would be an interesting addition to the story is to investigate how O'Donnell has represented her education throughout her career, i.e. when she founded and oversaw the SALT (a 501c3 organization), did she represent her education in the corporate organization papers? Is that paper trial available via Freedom of Information in the documentation of a 501c3 organization? When an invited speaker, did she represent herself as having a degree? Did she represent that she had achieved a bachelors and post-graduate degree? If the representations do not accord with the facts, that would be a story.

Posted by: whathappenedtoenlightenment | September 29, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

I forgot to mention that my kids also ATTENDED Stanford U as well last year at 10 and 14. They took video/soccer and web design/soccer summer camp classes. Don't ask me how much it cost their parents!
They have also GONE to Stanford many times (since we live nearby), to visit the gorgeous chapel and art museums. I WENT to Stanford to attend a terrific design conference 20 years ago.

Posted by: Sparkels | September 29, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

scabby:

If those were the only two choices (they are not), I would have to "prefer" amazingly, radiantly stupid.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 29, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

There is nothing wrong with fresh blood in Congress- Lord knows we need it if we are ever going to get Lobbyists out of town- which is probably a pipe dream. But a shining star in the area of thought or philosophy isn't going to immediately translate into an effective legislator who can broker deals, direct a crack staff and embrace the system that need to be maintained in Congress. The Republicans came out twith this Pledge to America- which is the biggest, most filled will smoke and mirrors offering from them yet- and still they came to us with it and a straight face. But the Tea Party Candidates- all energetic and shiny and new-need to have in their background some evidence of management skill- not just their own time management. They need to have money understanding. BIG Corporate money. Saying that you will be a good steward of the tax payers money because you ran yourself into bankruptcy and are smarter now- that is- well it's so revolting a segue into a position of budget influence- I can't even hold that thought for long or my stomach starts to flip.
Look lots of things look good in the package- the question is can it do as advertised. Don't get sucker-punched by a pretty box.

Posted by: poppysue85 | September 29, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

JakeD2 - You are kidding, right?

If I say "I studied at Harvard" there is an implication to the phrase that everyone except a complete idiot understands. This is short hand for saying "I was accepted into Harvard, I enrolled and I took serious classes there."

Maybe a stone cold literalist could understand my going to the Harvard library to study for my high school geometry test as "studying at Harvard." But that person would also have to be delusional.

Finally, when you list:
University of Oxford
"Post Modernism in the New Millennium"

on something like a resume (which that section of Linkedin is) you are also making an implication and it is not that you took this course in a building on the campus but the course has no connection to the institution listed.

If she was not lying she would have said:
Phoenix Institution
"Post Modernism in the New Millennium"

To try to defend this type of fraud is pathetic.

Posted by: TOMMYBASEBALL | September 29, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

But..... Is a lie, a lie, if you believe it is the truth? Facts and Beliefs are two separate entities.

Example: You cannot PROVE the existence of god, if you could, you would not need faith.

But belief (faith) in god, does not mean he exists. But some need no proof.

Can I eat my Twinkie now?

Posted by: kparc | September 29, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Jake wrote:
"If those were the only two choices (they are not)..."

I fail to see how any other explanation is anything more than equivocation and apologism. To say that this was intentionally misleading is a gross understatement. At some point a semantic deception crosses the line into outright falsehood, and this is ludicrous enough to be well past that.

Posted by: scabby | September 29, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

scabby (and TOMMYBASEBALL):

Here's a third explanation, issued by Ms. O'Donnell today.

"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."

I wouldn't be surprised if some journ-O-list (maybe even Greg Sargent himself) created the LinkedIn bio page just to get this "scoop". Kinda like the IRS targeted her (as set forth above ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 29, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2

Yea, right. OJ said he didn't do it, too.

And besides, this explanation does not eliminate your lame effort to apologize for her apparent issues with the truth:

"Quite literally, "I've studied at Harvard and Yale" is true if you studied in their parking lot. I'm still not sure where the "lie" is on this one. Ms. O'Donnell does not even claim to have "studied" simply listing where she did take a course under EDUCATION on some LinkedIn bio page."

Quite literally it is not true nor accurate. It is a lie. Sorry Charlie.

Even a partisan can smell a rat. You can't tell me that you look at this bozo and see a senator. If you do, I am sorry, you are beyond help.

As an example, I do not like or agree with Bob Ehrlich and I would not vote for him under any circumstances - and I also happen to know him. But, while I think he is a dirty campaigner and wrong on most of the issues I think he also is sane and has some level of integrity.

Christine O'Donnell, no matter what her politics, reminds you of the people who dress up as ET and hang out at Area 51.

There is nothing senatorial about her. For that matter, there is nothing even school boardial about her.

It is a sinking ship, Jake. Even a true believer should be able to see that.

Posted by: TOMMYBASEBALL | September 29, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Christine O'Donnell could "pad her resume," but she couldn't "bend the truth" during the Holocaust if a Nazi asked her whether she knew a Jew was hiding? That was Eddie Izard's point, too, that just as we grade murder, there are varying shades of truth and fiction. For Christine O'Donnell, her sliding ruler only applies to herself.

Posted by: 2partsgin | September 29, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Hey ..You've had 3 years to look into Obama's educational background..I DARE YOU TO DO IT, The MSM has been his lapdog since day one.

Posted by: omstrat

___________________

omstrat, what part of President Obama's education is in question?

Do you seriously think that if there was anything to any of this hooey about the President it would not be reported to death of Faux News???????

Or are you saying conservative journalists are rubes who are easily duped and lack the skills of the liberal media to get the details on a story?????

I think the lunatic fringe of the right wing has gone far beyond their 15 minutes and it is time for them to crawl back under their rock.

Posted by: TOMMYBASEBALL | September 29, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

The difference, of course, is that O.J. did kill his ex-wife and Ron Goldman. Also, I never "apologized" (whether you think my theories were "lame" or not). Even O.J. was entitled to a defense.

Speaking of "sinking ships" from which one are Rahm Emanuel and Lawrence Summers fleeing?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 29, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

2partsgin:

Did you see my response (above) to Eddie Izard's point?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 29, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Jake,
Looks like you weren't at Oxford either:

Dictionary.com,
a·pol·o·gist
–noun
1. a person who makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc.
2. Ecclesiastical .
a. also, a·pol·o·gete [uh-pol-uh-jeet] a person skilled in apologetics.

b. one of the authors of the early Christian apologies in defense of the faith.
Origin:
1630–40; apolog(y) + -ist or < F apologiste


Even lamer, still:
Larry Summers said he was leaving after 2 years when he got the gig and it is customary for economic advisers to do so. Look at the Bush administration as an example.

Rahm Emanuel has not said anything about leaving the administration. If he did leave to run for Mayor of Chicago it would hardly be jumping ship. Chicago is our 3rd largest city and the position has a lot of prestige.

While you can probably name the last 3 or 4 mayors of Chicago off of the top of your head, I bet you can't even name who was the Chief of Staff before Emanuel if I spotted you the first name (Joshua).

You are obviously an amateur.

Posted by: TOMMYBASEBALL | September 29, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Greg, word is out that YOU are the guy who put together this particular LinkedIn bio page.

Still, Christine hasn't blamed you directly, but you're the first guy on the block with this stuff ~ which she didn't authorize.

Pretty funny, you being a propagandist for the DNC. I would imagine Christine or her campaign will sue your pants off ~ if, in fact, you bother wearing them these days.

Posted by: muawiyah | September 29, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Ms. O'Donnell educational accomplishments are compared to President Obamas? I don't get the O.J. thread in this discussion at all. Or the Rahm Emanuel and Lawrence Summers educational, (are there any), embellishments thread.
I heard that where CO'd was born she could see Russia, (looking east). She also will be starring on DWTS next season.
The great thing about being anti-evolution/sex/education is that you will not evolve.

Posted by: Sparkels | September 29, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Hey, hockeymom1 ~ you know who you are. We also know that your statement as follows: "....... She is a crook and a liar, given her history of stealing campaign funds..............." is a concoction you've been peddling all Summer ~ fact is Senatorial candidates can spend up to $400,000 of campaign funds on personal expenses.

That's the law.

The point is that campaigning for the Senate takes almost everyone away from their jobs or other employment.

Since you know the law why do you keep pushing this story. Were you involved with Br'r Plum in doing the phony Linkdin Site?

Do you do this from your office at the DOJ, or from home?

Everybody'd love to know I'm sure.

Posted by: muawiyah | September 29, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

muawiyah, "That's the law."
$400,000 a year for personal expenses during what may be another failed campaign. I'm in the running. Is She/are They, like "community organizers"--god forbid--in the meantime, and at tax time? Campaigning Community Organizers. Tell me that it's tax exempt income and I will really barf.
Let us see Her/Their tax and income records back 10 years. I think Whitman and Brown showed theirs.

Posted by: Sparkels | September 29, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

O'Donnell is a congenital liar and a con-artist.

She is a disgrace to the Republican Party.

Posted by: WESHS49 | September 29, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Post Modernism: "in particular it attacks the use of sharp classifications such as male versus female, straight versus gay, white versus black, and imperial versus colonial." (WikiPedia). What grade did she get in her class? C O'd is sharp.

Posted by: Sparkels | September 29, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

TOMMYBASEBALL:

Bolten and, before he was Chief of Staff, Andy Card. Look, I already posted their names several days ago (too bad you didn't read that before making this bet). Before Card, Clinton's Chiefs of Staff were John Podesta, Erskine Bowles (sp?), Leon Panetta and one other one, I've forgotten that name. Reagan had the two Bakers, sandwiching Regan, and Dubenstein.

What do I win?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 29, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

It's hilarious to me that anyone would take up for this woman. If Christine O'Donnell were a liberal she would have been dismissed and distanced from a long time ago from all factions of the party. I just can't see how anyone would take up for this woman. In fact, since she lied about her education I wonder if she's really a United States citizen by birth... I want to see her birth certificate and tax returns since her 18th birthday.... HAHAHAHAHA

Posted by: Debonair31 | September 29, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Isn't Delaware that pesky state that acts as a onshore corporate tax haven. Other states company's incorporate their startups and corporate entities there even when they do all most all business elsewhere with little or no presence in the state, beyond a PO Box.
Resulting from...Delaware_General_Corporation_Law.
Delaware has more to explain than C O'd. Might be a good story to tell.

Money and tax shelters are to Delaware as Oil subsidies and federal grants per capita are to residents of Alaska.

Posted by: Sparkels | September 29, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Isn't Delaware that pesky state that acts as a onshore corporate tax haven. Other states company's incorporate their startups and corporate entities there even when they do all most all business elsewhere with little or no presence in the state, beyond a PO Box.
Resulting from...Delaware_General_Corporation_Law.
Delaware has more to explain than C O'd. Might be a good story to tell.

Money and tax shelters are to Delaware as Oil subsidies and federal grants per capita are to residents of Alaska.

Posted by: Sparkels | September 29, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Isn't Delaware that pesky state that acts as a onshore corporate tax haven. Other states company's incorporate their startups and corporate entities there even when they do all most all business elsewhere with little or no presence in the state, beyond a PO Box.
Resulting from...Delaware_General_Corporation_Law.
Delaware has more to explain than C O'd. Might be a good story to tell.

Money and tax shelters are to Delaware as Oil subsidies and federal grants per capita are to residents of Alaska.

Posted by: Sparkels | September 29, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Debonair31:

By "take up for this woman" you mean defend her from false allegations?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 29, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Ever since noting the Washington Post's reputation for publishing forgeries this thread has ground to a big screeching halt.

Plum Line should start searching for another sucker to publish this cr*p.

Posted by: muawiyah | September 29, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

O'Donnell's question about the evolution of monkeys is actually a legitimate one. To find out she needs to read any popular science type book on biology or evolution. There are lots of them and they are easy to read. Then she could claim to be an evolutionary biologist on top of being a witch and whatever else she thinks will get her attention that night on TV. She's like Ann Coulter, goes for the most shocking thing thing she can think of. It's just that she's not as smart as Ann Coulter. Prettier, though.

Posted by: tughillb | September 29, 2010 5:11 PM | Report abuse

C O'd. The great thing about being anti-evolution theory, anti-sex and anti-higher education is that you, fortunately for the rest of us, will not evolve or reproduce.

Posted by: Sparkels | September 29, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Jake -

True, anything's logically possible, but I feel very unlikely, especially given how convenient the "that's not me in that video" sort of explanation is if nothing else works and you can get anyone to buy it. Also more dubious given how long it took them to release that response. If she had no linkedin page, you'd think that'd be the response within an hour or so of this coming out.

Posted by: scabby | September 29, 2010 8:39 PM | Report abuse

As a graduate of Harvard Law School, I demand equal time! If Ms. O'Donnell can glibly claim to have gone to Oxford, Claremont and Princeton, why hasn't she chosen my alma mater as a target?

Prejudice?

Harvard Law School is at least as deserving as Oxford or Princeton or Claremont to being lied about by political candidates. So come on, Christine: claim to have been a classmate of Barack's! Those of us with a copy of the Alumni Directory will never check up on you! Go for it!

Posted by: thrh | September 29, 2010 10:14 PM | Report abuse

"Ever since noting the Washington Post's reputation for publishing forgeries this thread has ground to a big screeching halt.

Plum Line should start searching for another sucker to publish this cr*p.

Posted by: muawiyah

HUH? I'm still here, dude! What's "ground to a screeching halt," other than O'Donnell's grandiose claims of intellectual accomplishment?

Posted by: thrh | September 29, 2010 10:20 PM | Report abuse

However much O'Donnell tries to walk back claims that she lied on the website, she still has her perjured testimony about Princeton to deal with, or the multiple claims about having graduated college. Which make her protestations this time a bit hard to believe. Having been caught in multiple lies about her education background makes it harder to call foul when she's caught in more lies about her education background.

Get it?

Posted by: thrh | September 29, 2010 10:25 PM | Report abuse

The most amusing thing about this controversy is that O'Donnell is demonstrably dumber than a rock, and was never college-level material in the first place. Hell, she wasn't eighth-grade level material. That's what makes her claims of "Oxford" and "Claremont" and "Princeton" so stunning: nobody in their right mind could have ever thought that any of those institutions could have ever had anything to do with her, other than collecting tuition for "night classes" where they take bucks from the dupes.

Posted by: thrh | September 29, 2010 10:29 PM | Report abuse

Tomorrow's report: God told her to lie on her resume.

Posted by: thrh | September 29, 2010 10:32 PM | Report abuse

This women gives con-men a bad name.

Posted by: wilder5121 | September 30, 2010 2:49 AM | Report abuse

Whoopee Ding,as with Rand Paul, Democrats , RINO and Globalists love to smear CA, CA especially on non-establishment politicians that aren't on the Dole of the Global Elitists!

She gave a positive slant to her studies, probably thinking that if Oxford University rented space to the Phoenix Institute, that Oxford approved of the Phoenix course somewhat! If not they probably would not have let them in the building? Do you let people you don't approve of in your building?

At any rate, O'Donell has not strung any hot ones at the level that the silver tongued devil President Barry Soetoro, oh, pardon me, President Barak Hussein Obama has BS'ed his voters with!

Posted by: PaulRevere4 | September 30, 2010 3:46 AM | Report abuse

What is quite evident is that Tea Baggers are full of jealousy and actually yearn to be legitimately educated. I mean, why else post false information about having been educated? O'Donnell and her lemmings are eaten by self-inferiority. They peer into their little minds and realize they're empty.

Posted by: medogsbstfrnd | September 30, 2010 9:07 AM | Report abuse

What is quite evident is that Tea Baggers are full of jealousy and actually yearn to be legitimately educated. I mean, why else post false information about having been educated? O'Donnell and her lemmings are eaten by self-inferiority. They peer into their little minds and realize they're empty.

Posted by: medogsbstfrnd | September 30, 2010 9:10 AM | Report abuse

medogsbstfrnd:

At least we know enough to not post the same thing twice in a row.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 30, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

O'Donnell supporters done care about the truth. the same whack-jobs that supported their own Christianist messiah, GW Bush.

Their fragile heads exploded when the disaster that was Bush was fully revealed and two wars and an unregulated banking free-for all collapsed the financial system. And then, to top it off, an intelligent, well-educated Black man was elected by a landslide.

They couldn't handle the truth so they made one up about a Muslim Socialist.

Delusion knows no bounds.

Posted by: thebobbob | September 30, 2010 8:30 PM | Report abuse

Jake -

So, a ZoomInfo profile verified to have been created by O'Donnell herself lists essentially the same claim as the LinkedIn profile. Even harder to believe the belated claim by her campaign that the LinkedIn profile was created by someone else. If that's the case, it amounts to a lie to cover another lie.

Posted by: scabby | September 30, 2010 11:32 PM | Report abuse

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/educating-christine-odonnell-linkedin-gate-lawsuits-and-late-degrees-color-senate-hopefuls-resume.php?ref=fpa

Posted by: scabby | September 30, 2010 11:42 PM | Report abuse

Jake D2 wrote "You libs sure are stretching..."

Thanks for that, Jake. It's funny as h*** to read that after spending an hour listening to right wing radio jocks- and right wing politicians- tell bald-faced lies one after the other.

Posted by: Ilikemyprivacy | October 2, 2010 12:36 AM | Report abuse

You're welcome : )

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 4, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company