Good News for O’Donnell: Zoominfo Profiles Can Be Verified by Anyone
When I first mentioned Christine O’Donnell’s Zoominfo profile I said:
A ZoomInfo spokesman claims that the “user verified” tag means O’Donnell verified the information on the ZoomInfo profile herself. Color me skeptical: how in the world would he know? ZoomInfo and LinkedIn should be more transparent — for example, they could release the e-mail address used by the person who set up the account.
Reader Aaron Worthing convinced Zoominfo that he is famed rock musician Tom Petty
Aaron joins me in calling on Zoominfo to release the e-mail address of the person who set up the O’Donnell profile:
So Zoominfo, it’s time to step up. Disclose the email address used to verify this account. If not to us, at least to an appropriately skeptical reporter.
They can’t really claim privacy. O’Donnell can’t claim it because she says she didn’t set it up. Nobody else can because they would be imposters. Release the information.
Nice job by Aaron.
I’m pretty convinced that Worthington is Tom Petty and I want to lodge a strong complaint about “Free Falling” … the worse Tom Petty song ever.
I blame you, Aaron.SPQR (26be8b) — 10/13/2010 @ 7:02 am
Hey, I like “Free Falling”!
Aaron, you rock!Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90) — 10/13/2010 @ 7:13 am
So he went to the same school as Jack Black, lol,ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/13/2010 @ 7:16 am
Come on, Patterico, as the song goes, ‘let it be’
Free falling is a good song. But waaaay overplayed. to the point that you get sick of it.
Personally my favorite song on that album was “A Face in the Crowd.”
now i think about it, i think they have the IP address, too. That might be more important than the email.Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/13/2010 @ 7:23 am
Brother Bradley was the most respected person on this blog in my opinion.
Was.SPQR (26be8b) — 10/13/2010 @ 7:25 am
My respectability rating with SPQR just went into a free fall.Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90) — 10/13/2010 @ 7:58 am
A lifetime of accomplishment, Brother Bradley, for what? A bad song and a bad pun.SPQR (26be8b) — 10/13/2010 @ 8:36 am
At the risk of hearing a chorus of “Don’t Come Around Here No More”, can I ask a simple question?
Why? Why would someone claim O’Donnell’s Zoominfo profile in 2008 and put in exaggerated information?Kman (d25c82) — 10/13/2010 @ 10:07 am
i ♥ underdogs ~Vermont Neighbor (f89659) — 10/13/2010 @ 10:17 am
Because she was a US Senate candidate?
sophists like kman and shooter are tiresome.JD (1d20c1) — 10/13/2010 @ 10:25 am
AW is an unabashed tool of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy;AD-RtR/OS! (8b4d8f) — 10/13/2010 @ 10:31 am
and he’s not nice to dogs or little children either!
She was a 2008 Senate candidate and therefore… what exactly?
You think the Biden campaign or Biden supporters were worried about her?Kman (d25c82) — 10/13/2010 @ 10:37 am
What you are doing is distracting from the point that AW and Patterico made, there is no evidence that she did it. AW pointed out how easy it is to get a profile approved.JD (1d20c1) — 10/13/2010 @ 10:39 am
Well done, Aaron.
There’s no way around Zoominfo’s claims are unreliable, now. And this could just be a smear of O’donnell by someone cleverly exploiting a specific and believable smear. People are clever like that.
Kman, O’donnell has been running for office for many years, and people screw around online for reasons other than winning elections. But this goes beyond that.
I don’t want people to be able to forge other people’s registrations because that invites tricks. Zoominfo’s claim about their tag is incorrect, and people have relied on that claim. They need to fix this.Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/13/2010 @ 10:56 am
I think AW and Patterico’s point was that there’s still an open question.
Still, there’s some evidence she did it, if only because she’s mislead about her education on other occasions.
And I’m simply asking a reasonable question. If she didn’t do it, then someone else did. And I can’t really think of why. Seems a bit of a stretch for someone else to claim her ZoomInfo resume and change just that.Kman (d25c82) — 10/13/2010 @ 10:59 am
Now you are just being a sophist. It was believed to be true, given added credibility because it was allegedly an approved or certified verification that it was hers. AW showed how meaningless that is. She may have done it. There is as much evidence that she did it as there is evidence Kman did it. zoominfo can clarify.JD (1d20c1) — 10/13/2010 @ 11:06 am
But this is my point. Someone had to change the Zoominfo education information no later than March 10, 2010, knowing that this would become a exploitable smear several months (perhaps years) later. That’s not merely being “clever” — that’s being Nostradamus.
I mean, it’s possible, but it ranks up there with a birth announcement being (“falsely”) placed in a Hawaiian newspaper in 1960… you know, just in case he runs for president decades later.Kman (d25c82) — 10/13/2010 @ 11:07 am
You need to flip the page on your Word-A-Day calendar….Kman (d25c82) — 10/13/2010 @ 11:08 am
I’m partial to “Love is a Long Road” and “Zombie Zoo”, meself. But Full Moon Fever pretty much rocks from start to finish.Leviticus (890614) — 10/13/2010 @ 11:15 am
Yeah, I should not use a word in the appropriate context, huh, Kman?JD (1d20c1) — 10/13/2010 @ 11:20 am
Zoominfo just cancelled my account. i assume the link is dead. Heh. I’ll share at my blog shortly and give a link.Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/13/2010 @ 11:32 am
Did someone notify them, AW?JD (1d20c1) — 10/13/2010 @ 11:35 am
I am curious if they emailed you about this.
But I wonder if someone clicked some kind of alert button. Doesn’t matter, now. Zoominfo’s claim about their user verification is utter garbage. They are more worried about protecting their image than their reliability, if they don’t disclose everything they have on who registered O’Donnell’s page.
Kman, I think O’Donnell did this too, but I’ve got no evidence now. What I was relying on, from zoominfo, was really BS. It’s not plausible that someone set this up in advance to spoil the campaign, but it’s possible someone else set this up (for any reason).
Hell, your claims about dates could be wrong too. Who do you trust with that information? Zoominfo?Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/13/2010 @ 11:39 am
I think Patterico thinks she did it, but he’s slyly using conservative O’Donnell supporters and/or simply technically savant readers who may not be OD supporters to force ZoomInfo to out the info, one way or the other.
The key giveways are: “O’Donnell can’t claim it because she says she didn’t set it up. Nobody else can because they would be imposters.”
So, if O’Donnell is shown to be a lying rat, Patterico won’t give a damn about outing her, as per his previously stated thoughts on the subject. And, if it turns out she isn’t, then Patterico can quite correctly claim credit for proving her innocence on this point, both righting any wrong that his raised suspicions about O’Donnell may have caused, and doing so in such a way that he gains credit as the man who proved her honesty here.
It’s clever, actually.
But of course he, and I, suspect she wrote that profile.Christoph (8ec277) — 10/13/2010 @ 11:45 am
Here’s the link. http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2010/10/zoominfo-just-cancelled-my-account.html
the funny thing is that the fake profile is still up!
Also unrelated but fun, it turns out that Jerry Brown is incompetant at his current job. http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2010/10/jerry-brown-demonstrates-he-doesnt-know.htmlAaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/13/2010 @ 12:00 pm
Perhaps Zoominfo does have a way of confirming when someone creates bogus information.Kman (d25c82) — 10/13/2010 @ 12:02 pm
Why is this “good news”? Where does she go to get her reputation back after being trashed by people like you and of course people a lot more important than you?
“Oops — never mind” isn’t much of a consolation, much less “good news”.Charles (5c621d) — 10/13/2010 @ 12:07 pm
Good job, Aaron.DRJ (d43dcd) — 10/13/2010 @ 12:17 pm
> I think AW and Patterico’s point was that there’s still an open question.
I definitely consider it an open question.
> I think Patterico thinks she did it, but he’s slyly using conservative O’Donnell supporters and/or simply technically savant readers who may not be OD supporters to force ZoomInfo to out the info, one way or the other.
Well, first, that is an unfair characterization of me. I am not at all technically savant. 🙂
Joking aside, look, if I was a Del. resident, sure I would be voting for COD. But truth is truth, I wanted to know.
Did she create it? I have said the comments before it would be a little weird, because it spends so much time talking about her in the third person. And this profile updated in 2010, has a blurb that is clearly written in anticipation of the 2008 election. So I lean toward her not having made it. But who knows?
But I don’t feel like Patterico is using me because we share the same goal: getting at the truth.
And why would Patterico have to “use” anyone to make it happen? I mean that is the point. ANYONE could have done this. Really, I showed no technical savvy at all. I just went to the site, signed up and made up a completely bogus profile. Indeed the email I used was AaronJW72@gmail.com, which means they only would have had to have looked at the email to realize something was up. Believe you me, I am not a master hacker.
I mean, maybe they will tighten things up, but I suspect any one of you could do it now. You just create the profile, wait a few days and see what happens. I would give it a 50-50 chance of working even with this public embarrassment.Aaron Worthing (b1db52) — 10/13/2010 @ 12:20 pm
What are you talking about?
She got “trashed” by people like Patterico because of many issues. She doesn’t deserve to get her reputation back if she can’t actually resolve those issues. No one has proven she didn’t make this Zoominfo page… all this shows is that Zoominfo’s ‘verified’ tag means nothing.
And, at any rate, the real accusation was that O’Donnell lied about her education. This was supposed to be further evidence of that, but it’s just weak. Would you like me to prove she lied about her education again?
That’s exactly what you seem to be calling for, when you pretend she has a reputation to get back, and those critical of her have done something wrong. O’Donnell supporters make a mistake when they force the discussion in that direction.
I don’t really want to shred her reputation again. It’s not necessary and most people are tired of it. Admit she lied about her educational background, please, so that I do not need to do so.Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/13/2010 @ 12:24 pm
Getting at the truth is what’s important, Aaron.
And the truth is … Chistine O’Donnell ain’t going to win. The only question is, “Should she?”
Your little experiment may help answer that question.Christoph (8ec277) — 10/13/2010 @ 12:25 pm
i assume someone notified them. I put up the post and they cancel my account the next day. What do you think the chances are of that being a coincidence?
And i don’t think they would be likely to know about it otherwise, i mean i would be really surprised if some google alert told them.
I will note that i emailed the editor of WAPO’s the plum line about it, too. If he saw the email, I think he would almost feel duty bound to ask about what i found. i don’t mean that in a negative way, but he would feel that as a reporter my blog post had called into question their verification process and he would want to ask them about it, citing my blog post.
I mean bluntly, i don’t feel like I have been ratted out. I fully expected them to catch on, although I am amused at how fast it happened.
Yes, they emailed me. see at the link. We had a small back and forth, but they are refusing, for now, to release the address connected with the o’donnell profile. but i am pressing them, as best as i can, to do it.Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/13/2010 @ 12:26 pm
It has never stopped you before.
AW – Thanks. Your stalkerish thingie is creepy.JD (1d20c1) — 10/13/2010 @ 12:30 pm
I don’t expect them to ever give up the email address, Aaron, but you’re doing a great job showing why they really ought to.
I’m not really worried about this as it pertains to the election. I think social network sites need to think about this kind of problem. Zoominfo’s thought was simply to pretend they had verified info, which is basically the worst possible solution.Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/13/2010 @ 12:32 pm
And by the way, I don’t mean Patterico was being so sly that you, Aaron, didn’t catch what was going on. Mostly that the staunch Christine O’Donnell supporters are so (Patterico wouldn’t want me to finish that sentence, per the terms of his unbanning, so I won’t)
so [gullible? I guess I could probably get away with that word] … that most of them haven’t caught what Patterico is doing. They think he’s promoting this ZoomInfo thing in a strong effort to prove her innocence and redeem her.
Instead, he’s enlisting them on his side because they believe in her and therefore disbelieve ZoomInfo’s assertion that O’Donnell would have made that profile. With their pressure, and your efforts, he hopes to force ZoomInfo to divulge the email address used.
Which will, of course, immediately prove one way or the other whether O’Donnell lied about setting it up.
I will point out that if O’Donnell says she didn’t set up that profile, her campaign could call ZoomInfo and ask them to release the email address used at sign-up to show it wasn’t hers, right? Based on ZoomInfo’s statement, I bet you it’s an email address easily tracked back to its owner.Christoph (8ec277) — 10/13/2010 @ 12:35 pm
Well, to be honest, yeah, I have tried to lay off a bit. Something about her attitude on that radio interview just strikes a nerve in me, and something about all the ‘shut up’ types really gets under my skin, too. But I’ve tried not to bash O’Donnell a few times.
I don’t think it’s necessary to explain why again, but it is the obvious rebuttal to ‘where does she got to get her reputation back!’
I am actually trying to avoid trashing her right now.Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/13/2010 @ 12:38 pm
Yeah, that’s totally true.
I know Twitter makes a big deal that you can trust that their Oprah Winfrey is really her and they have the “Verified account” with the checkmark icon too. As far as I know, Twitter celebrity accounts are verified well, but I don’t know how they do this.
It’s unfortunate if ZoomInfo doesn’t appear to do as good a job. However, I still suspect whatever email address was used to verify this particular account would be Christine O’Donnell’s.Christoph (8ec277) — 10/13/2010 @ 12:41 pm
Btw, tangential to the topic, apparently those crazy taiwanese animators have one on O’donnell v. coons.
if i understand correctly this is the same people who made two hilarious videos over the al gore hooker allegations, so while i can’t watch the latest video, i am pretty sure it is hilarious.
and as for gore, it looks like a giant “i don’t know” is the right answer here, unless another shoe drops. and of course in our system “i don’t know,” becomes “not guilty.”Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/13/2010 @ 12:48 pm
I think I’ll get my news from Taiwanese animators from now on.
That was good.Christoph (8ec277) — 10/13/2010 @ 12:53 pm
The thing I don’t get is that, with A.W’s “Tom Petty” and with O’Donnell’s entry — both of which are “user-verified” — it has a blue box allowing the reader to “claim this profile”.
What does that mean? Has the author confirmed the accuracy of the profile or not?Kman (d25c82) — 10/13/2010 @ 12:54 pm
Yeah that is funny, and when the PLA lands in Taipei, it’ll be more hilarious, the same appliesian cormac (6709ab) — 10/13/2010 @ 12:55 pm
to insinuations slurs against Palin, who would probably be one of the few politicians who would
come to their aid
The cartoon is hilarious, Aaron.
Nice dig at Coons, too.Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/13/2010 @ 12:55 pm
At first I balked at the “her crazy views” description.
Then they went through them, visually, and I was like, “Yeah, they’re pretty crazy.”
The chilling part was her insistence on public TV that she would never lie to save someone from Nazis, trusting God to do it, but about her own educational background in order to gain some fame and power?
Well, she’s a little bit less adamant then, isn’t she?Christoph (8ec277) — 10/13/2010 @ 1:00 pm
who would you vote for if you lived in the state?
Coons or COD?
And if she didn’t puff up her resume, or say she was a witch or any other wacky thing, would that change your answer?Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/13/2010 @ 1:11 pm
Actually after what I have seen of how the boys in Wilmington handle things, how they would apparentlyian cormac (6709ab) — 10/13/2010 @ 1:20 pm
invent death threats, there’s nothing I would put past them, why didn’t they effectively challenge
Biden or Carper, for the better part of twenty years
I really don’t have a problem with O’Donnell’s supposed whacky views. It’s easy to catch anyone in such a dilemma if they are consistent with some moral principle. Such as ‘tell the truth and trust God’. What kind of an idiot decided to press that all the way to ‘trust God to save Anne Frank by telling Nazis the truth? Huhhh?’ I wish O’Donnell meant what she said about honesty. They catch honest pro-lifers this way with rape victim scenarios. If you think killing a fetus= killing a person, of course you think it’s wrong to kill a person because they were conceived via rape. That’s an ugly consequence of logical consistency.
I don’t *agree* with all O’Donnell’s comments over the years, be it about gays and AIDS or other things, but if all politicians simply noted their stances and let the chips fall where they may, we’d be better off.
On her actual current policy points, O’Donnell is awesome, IMO. I doubt she means them, because they require so much personal integrity. They are the hard path to reelection. I suspect O’Donnell would eventually have morphed into an expedient RINO. I still think that’s superior to Coons.
I am completely out of step with Delaware. They could care less about the dishonesty (re: Biden) and care much more about the gotcha politics.Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/13/2010 @ 1:28 pm
O’Donnell. And the witch thing doesn’t bother me. I think all religions are crazy. Besides, she’s kinda hot and I love her voice.
I’d totally date her.
But her doing what LOTS of chicks do, which is talk about how wonderfully honest THEY are, in her case to the point of turning in Anne Frank rather than lie (which would REALLY piss me off since I despise the Nazis and Jew-haters in general) while at the same time lying, yet absolving herself of responsibility for her lies … would turn me off.
It’s so common.Christoph (8ec277) — 10/13/2010 @ 1:33 pm
It’s a hard road to follow, certainly, who would have thought that Ensign would turn out the way he did, or Vitter, or that other congressman who did anti adultery ad, with the aide he was conductingian cormac (6709ab) — 10/13/2010 @ 1:34 pm
research with, ahem,
Thanks for clarifying.
But I think you missed the point of her answer. It was a sign that O’Donnell too despises Nazis (of course, just about every sane person does), and that’s how extensive her honesty is. It’s not necessary to point out Nazis are bad… that’s her point. The way you’re refuting her suggests she is honest to Nazis because she didn’t despise them, which is absurd.
the rest of your comment makes sense. She was trumpeting her honesty while not being honest, which is pretty typical.Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/13/2010 @ 1:41 pm
“The chilling part was her insistence on public TV that she would never lie to save someone from Nazis”
Ghandi advised Jews to offer themselves to the Nazis and that they would be shamed into giving them their freedom. Would you not vote for Ghandi, Christoph? Ben Kingsley played him and Richard Attenborough directed him! Surely that’s a better hand than ‘it’s just about sex’ that Clinton played.East Bay Jay (84fd83) — 10/13/2010 @ 1:45 pm
First, further update. they responded that they don’t think she has disavowed the zoominfo page. weird, i am pretty sure she did.
Well, i wrote her campaign, so maybe they will answer that question.
interesting to see where you are coming from. Thanks.Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/13/2010 @ 1:53 pm
Not an f’n chance in hell I’d vote for Ghandi, East Bay Jay. The man was a racist sexual abuser of teenage girls. The man was no better than an abusive Catholic priest.
And, yes, I could cast a vote in favour of a priest who was generally a decent man.
I think she’s also very well spoken. I can see her charisma.
Yeah, I’m not perfectly honest myself (who is?), but I’ve been told by several people over the years that they like me because of my honesty. So I strive in that direction and I guess that’s why I understand how a GOP candidate’s honesty is important to Patterico et al.
In the end, if I lived in Delaware, sure I’d rather vote for her than a Marxist. But because she is such a terrible candidate both because of her personal dishonesty and past, lampoon-able statements, she can’t win and may cost the GOP the gavel in the senate.
And I also understand why Patterico would find that regrettable.
I am not a doctrinaire conservative. I am a centre-right free-market hawkish atheist libertarian who nonetheless believes in a (somewhat) mixed economy to provide a safety net to the least able to help themselves.
But hands off the sex toys, government. Seriously.Christoph (8ec277) — 10/13/2010 @ 1:55 pm
Sorry, my last comment was directed toward East Bay Jay and Dustin, not to Aaron Worthing.Christoph (8ec277) — 10/13/2010 @ 1:56 pm
Yeah, that is weird, Aaron. I thought she had disavowed it too. I thought I read that here.Christoph (8ec277) — 10/13/2010 @ 1:58 pm
She said she didn’t know what Zoom is. She didn’t directly deny making the page. Is this enough of a denial to free Zoominfo from a confidentiality clause in their terms of service? I don’t think so.Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/13/2010 @ 2:04 pm
I don’t believe O’Donnell is proactively supportive of Nazis. I believe that she wanted people to believe she is personally so honest that she would tell the truth at all times, trusting in God to somehow get her and the Jews fortunate enough to be in her presence out of the mess (despite his refusal and/or inability to do so in countless other cases) … that she would not lie even then, to save Jews.
So she hates the Nazis and their murdering of Jews she personally knows less than she hates the thought of people thinking her dishonest before God. Or being dishonest before God. Either way.
Aside from my belief that it is insane to have faith to such an extent that you believe, or publicly profess to believe, such a thing … what really sticks in my craw is how she said that would not be a good time to lie, but to advance her career or conveniently answer reporters questions in a way that make her results look better than they were, then lying is A OK.
You see the problem?Christoph (8ec277) — 10/13/2010 @ 2:06 pm
> The man was a racist sexual abuser of teenage girls.
Ghandi? I hate to ask because i am not sure i want to know but… are you serious? and if so, gotta link?
Btw, speaking of voting for abusers… A dem congressman has been very credibly accused of beating his wife. http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2010/10/is-charlie-wilson-wife-beater.html
i wrote to the lawyer who handled the case to see what i might be able to verify.Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/13/2010 @ 2:12 pm
Yeah, that’s a good way to put it. I don’t really think O’donnell was saying it’s better to lie in self promotion than to lie to protect some kid from Nazis, and neither to do you.
She was just saying she never lies, because she’s a liar.
And I don’t really mind the extreme extent of her view. She was saying she has faith in God. Replying ‘how much? this much? thus much? huh? this much?’ is just cheap. It’s meant to screw someone up if they are trying to be coherent. It’s not reasonable to apply it to legislative agendas (in fact, it’s great for legislators to be completely honest).
I just don’t think it’s fair to rely on such a strange question. At most, it shows she wasn’t able to deal with gotcha games because she lacks experience with them. I don’t care about that very much.
Tonight is O’Donnell’s last chance, IMO, to make a dent. She has a debate with someone who is simply very good at coming across as a nice guy in a debate (I watched the last one). I think Delaware is so familiar with O’Donnell that they will not be surprised by anything here or change their minds unless O’Donnell is truly amazing.Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/13/2010 @ 2:18 pm
About Gandhi and his sleeping with teenage girls throughout his life until his assassination as well as racism (which is perhaps more understandable in his day). There is lots of information about the sexual perversion in particular in the public domain, Aaron, and it was much discussed in the Indian press at the time.
However, I don’t want to spend all day looking for references. I’ll give one link to get you started with Penn and Teller:
Profanity warning.Christoph (8ec277) — 10/13/2010 @ 2:27 pm
Well, let’s eliminate the spin. Saying you should absolutely lie was a ridiculously overbroad statement. i think no one would agree to that.
So she said something that was overbroad and when called on it, she pretended to stick to her guns and expect god to bail her out. i think if you could read her mind, she was really thinking, “ah crap, i never thought of that.” Which means she really didn’t think that comment through at all. But oh well.
i will point out, btw, for the record, that God tells us not to bear false witness against our neighbor. which is not the same as saying you can never lie and i have said in the past that i interpret my faith as requiring me to lie if need be to save a jew from the nazis. i mean i would be shooting a few nazis, too, if i was in that time and place, but lying to them? yeah, that too.Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/13/2010 @ 2:30 pm
Dustin, btw, thanks for the wapo link. blog post updated with that info, with credit.Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/13/2010 @ 2:31 pm
grr, dang typo fairy. i mean to say:
Saying you should absolutely NEVER lie was a ridiculously overbroad statement.”
Which changes the meaning a little, right? sigh.Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/13/2010 @ 2:32 pm
Yes he’s raised property taxes 50% in a down market, I don’t care if you’re Jimmy Stewart, I wouldn’t vote for the guy, hell they deserve him, they haven’t learned anything in two years, and she will be in a position to say I told you so, and sheian cormac (6709ab) — 10/13/2010 @ 2:33 pm
won’t be as reticent as some
Oh, and meanwhile at the polls COD seems increasingly like she is cooked.
although warning on sampling issues. i haven’t checked whether it is a fair sample of dems and republicans.
if we are going to take the senate, its probably not going to be in Del.
But then McMahon’s surge in Connecticut is keeping hope alive. and a vets group put an add beating up on the dem for lying about being in ‘nam.
now if only we can figure out how to beat that master politician, Greene, in South Carolina… lolAaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/13/2010 @ 2:36 pm
If she wasn’t a religious fantasist who was going on about how people shouldn’t masturbate, I might believe she was merely thinking that. As it is, I think she was speaking her mind.
Oh, and to go back to my “chicks lying” shtick up above … most of them believe themselves, even when lying, and rationalize like hell when confronted. I think Christine O’Donnell is this sort … based on the available evidence.Christoph (8ec277) — 10/13/2010 @ 2:37 pm
I’m not buying the assertion that she lied about her education based on what I’ve seen reported. My brother graduated from a Christian college with two bachelor’s degrees but the college refused to give him the sheepskins until years later, when he finished paying the college. In the meantime, while he still owed the Christian college (located in KY), he went to a state university (located in OH) and went to work as a graduate assistant while working on his master’s degree. Then later, he completed the process of paying the first college and got his sheepskins.
Regarding the whole “I won’t lie to protect Anne Frank from the nazis” bit, I suggest people read Corrie Ten Boom’s The Hiding Place. That event happened, although not with Anne Frank but with other Jews. And the nazi soldiers laughed the whole thing off and went on, while the hiding Jews were saved.
And with the drop-down selections that many sites use, I’ve found myself in situations where I had to pick the closest to what I had because what I had was not on the list. Happens regularly (when “other” and fill-in-the-blank is not an option). That’s not a lie; that’s a good faith attempt at transparency and honesty.John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 10/13/2010 @ 2:41 pm
No different than any other internet site, like Wiki. I could be anybody. Meanwhile, her info wasn’t radically “off”. Who even cares about ONE COURSE? Only people out to smear someone over something totally irrelevant. BTW where is Obama’s transcript that’s been in the forever locked archives. Oh that’s right. He was high all during high school and college so it doesn’t “count”.ali (580e5f) — 10/13/2010 @ 2:49 pm
In 2008 against Biden, did O’Donnell win those two (out of three) counties, John?
She later said she tied in those two counties. Well, did she?Christoph (8ec277) — 10/13/2010 @ 2:50 pm
It’s all nonsense. My company has profiles routinely show up all over the internet that I never authorized with bogus tags that have nothing to do with my business. And if you ever tried filling out a profile, you’d see that the selections are limited. It’s a non issue. Only the ignorant make it “something”.bs (580e5f) — 10/13/2010 @ 2:54 pm
Coons looks worse every time I pay attention to his record.
I don’t see how O’Donnell can say she told us so. Who is she telling? The ‘pragmatics’ who compromised on Castle because Coons was so bad? Telling them Coons really is so bad doesn’t strike me as all that powerful. She had every right to fight to win the primary. The GOP voters in DE didn’t want Castle and I think that’s easy to understand. More power to her and them.. But the people saying ‘I told you so’ are the ones who predicted that O’donnell being the nominee was the only way for Coons to enter the Senate.
The worse Coons is, the better Castle compares, after all. That primary is over, but I think the ‘I told you so’ from camp O’Donnell will not be well received. I hate to even consider the next one, but let’s hope someone electable and conservative takes it (I believe in 4 years).
Part of the problem with her Fairleigh Dickenson claims is that she needed an additional course to complete her degree, after claiming to have that degree. She even sued for the lost earning potential of a graduate degree from Princeton, including three years that she did not have her undergrad degree (either paid for or even finishing the coursework).
I don’t want to re-litigate this one, but she’s been asked point blank and not answered honestly, she’s filed court claims that aren’t possible. But the coup de grâce for me is how she handled this in an interview. That kind of ‘You’re on the Castle payroll, I heard!’ and reflex lying (about prior elections) are not acceptable. I’d like to say they are the reason she’s unelectable, but Ian will just point out Joe Biden.Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/13/2010 @ 3:02 pm
@65 According to the Catholic Church, masturbation is not permitted. So sue her for being one of millions of “believers”.bs (580e5f) — 10/13/2010 @ 3:03 pm
I don’t believe this. You’re telling me she could not select the school that actually offered the certificate? Well, I just checked, and Phoenix Institute is on many profiles on both Linkedin and Zoominfo. So no, that defense doesn’t work.
But why even offer that defense unless you think O’Donnell was lying? She said she didn’t make the profiles at all.Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/13/2010 @ 3:05 pm
I don’t care what Odonnell did in high school, or getting ratings on Bill Maher, or if she had a foreclosure, or if she took forever to get a degree. I wouldn’t even care if she had no degree. She will get my vote for simply being for SMALLEST POSSIBLE GOVERNMENT. Voting to repeal all the corrupt precursor Socialism laws Obama pushed through. Or minimally, stalling any further damage he can do until 2012. Done and done, she has my vote.idgaf (580e5f) — 10/13/2010 @ 3:15 pm
I took UoP Online courses. When filling out online documents, there were drop-downs with UoP this campus, UoP that campus, UoP the other campus, but no UoP online. So I had to just pick a campus I didn’t attend since I attended online. At a later date, they added the online option to their drop-down.
That means some people would not have had that option while others would. It’s a simple concept.
As to why someone would debunk an assertion that doesn’t even apply, that’s rather understandable as well. Debunk the underlying premise. Once that’s done, “for the sake of argument, let’s assume the debunked premise isn’t debunked.” Then debunk the other piece of information.
So, “not only are you mistaken about whether she created those profiles, you are also mistaken about whether various options were available to whomever created those profiles, so you’re already doubly wrong.” Simple as that. (For why you debunk more than one point.)John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 10/13/2010 @ 3:15 pm
However, if that version is correct (that she was unable to be accurate on her profiles), then she is guilty of lying in that she denied making the profiles.
Actually, I have had a similar problem because I took University of Maryland courses when I was in Korea, but that wasn’t really a UM campus. You’ve got a good point to some extent, although the institution that awarded O’Donnell’s certificate in Postmodern Fluff was available, and it just doesn’t make sense to say that was Oxford (in the opinion of the awarding institution).Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/13/2010 @ 3:28 pm
The above link will also have live stream of the O’Donnell-Coons debate for anyone who needs it.Christoph (8ec277) — 10/13/2010 @ 3:44 pm
I completed a 7-day, 70-hour American Home Inspector Training Institute (AHIT) course on the University of Akron main campus (but never had the opportunity to use it). I did not find out about it through Akron’s information, but Akron’s brochure includes the course as part of its “continuing education” curriculum. So, I could quite easily list University of Akron on my info packet without lying, methinks.John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 10/13/2010 @ 3:59 pm
What about saying you beat Joe Biden, the sitting Vice President, in two out of three counties during the 2008 election, John Hitchcock?Christoph (8ec277) — 10/13/2010 @ 4:03 pm
Ugh. She’s talking about “when we were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan”. I know what she means, but still.
Now she’s whining. She got rattled by the (exceedingly biased and obnoxious) female moderator … and O’Donnell has responded by crossing her arms and whining about how Coons promised he wouldn’t bring up stuff she did in her 20s (he didn’t: The moderator did) and now she’s thanking the obnoxious moderator who brought this unfair attack regarding her witchiness up.
It was all very unfair, but still looked bad for O’Donnell.Christoph (8ec277) — 10/13/2010 @ 5:03 pm
Now she EARNED a huge boo by saying, “There’s more people who would support my Catholic faith than his Marxist beliefs,” or words to that effect.
Oh. My. God.
She’s going to crater (more).Christoph (8ec277) — 10/13/2010 @ 5:05 pm
I think her ads may have taken a different tone.
“Some have been trying to say that I’m a witch. Well, they’re talking about the wrong person. If anyone in this election season is into magic it must be the Democrats. Pulling money out of a hat, and lots of it, seems the best idea they have about turning the economny around.”MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/13/2010 @ 6:26 pm
LOL, MD. That would be a great ad.
Coons on spending ought to be all the issue O’Donnell needs to win. For all my complaining about O’Donnell, her record beats Coons’s tax and spend. Or at least it should. I think O’Donnell’s wrong, and sadly, more people in her state agree with Coon’s economics than O’Donnell’s religion. But they have a stark choice, which is too rare.
They had a question about Court rulings she disagreed with and she had difficulty with it. How bad was that for her? I think most folks expected her to trip up on something, but I also think it was an easy question.Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/13/2010 @ 6:57 pm
COD has been vetted here lots more than POTUS in 2008.javert (0a0c11) — 10/13/2010 @ 8:01 pm
Was the question the profile was “verified” with the same diligence that AW’s phony Tom Petty profile was or is it whether COD did or didn’t write the one attributed to her? Therein lies the crux of the matter. If there is no verification of the author’s identity and it is proven that a complete falsification can be “verified” then it is fair to assume that nothing can be relied on to be factual.Theylie2you (0a96cb) — 10/14/2010 @ 7:53 pm
We have come to believe that because something is offered as true is not, that premise is disregarded and goes into 1) a defense of the source and 2) a defense or criticism of the object originally in question. Actual public records of one candidate’s record exist as do the records of the opponent. Regretfully, the honesty of the individual that will eventually assume the office they seek supercedes that of the opponent who (truthfully?) states he is a marxist with a voting record to match. “Gotcha” questions are by nature, designed to confuse the logical person and favor the professional taught to have ready answers for such questions. Waffle time is when asked “What will you do to…”. If there is no answer but an evasion, there’s the real gotcha.
IMO, COD is a far better candidate than Coons and I have as much of a stake in who is elected as people in DE.
I don’t know a lot about Delaware politics in general, although it is right next door to my home state of Maryland. I have only recently paid attention to this race and my impressions are almost entirely formed by recent comments in the press…many of whom are at least somewhat biased against O’Donnell or, in some cases, very biased in favor of Coons. However, let me ask this: If Castle was as much of a RINO as he appears to be, had he won the seat, would it really have helped the Conservative cause that much? In other words, we would be little, if any, better off with Castle in office as opposed to Coons. Frankly, I don’t see how the Republicans owning the Senate by 1 or 2 seats is going to help them in rolling back Obama’s agenda items…at least those that have already passed (presuming Obama exercises his veto power…something I expect). The best we can likely hope for at this point, is to hold the line on Obama furthering his agenda (although I fear what a lame duck congress might try to get away with before the new congress is seated). Just my 2 Cents. Christine O seems like she may have some significant problems…but if I really wanted something other than Coons, I’d vote for her with the idea that, if she doesn’t perform well, she can be replaced in the next primary.BeauW (0abffc) — 10/18/2010 @ 7:39 am