CNN (Obama TOO honest?): Obama's vetting could chase away candidates

[Poll_Blind]

Really, check this bullshit out:

CNN:

When it comes to vetting potential high-level advisers, is President-elect Barack Obama too cautious for his own good?

--snip--

After all, in addition to the already invasive FBI background check, the Obama team is requiring prospective candidates to complete a seven-page questionnaire that requires the disclosure of nearly every last private detail. In addition to the obvious questions involving past criminal history, candidates are asked about personal diaries, past blog posts, and the financial entanglements of extended family members.

"This questionnaire they've been giving to people who are thinking about signing up for a government job is extremely invasive," said David Gergen, a CNN senior political analyst and adviser to four past presidents. "I've never seen anything like this at the presidential level before -- the FBI asks these kind of questions, but to have the presidential transition team asking these questions requires ... great volumes of records that have to be checked out. "The most recent victim of the process appears to be Chicago businesswoman Penny Pritzker, the longtime Obama supporter and major Democratic fundraiser who was said to be the president-elect's top choice for commerce secretary.

It could also be the case the multibillionaire Pritzker didn't want her corporation's financial ties fully made public or her family, among Chicago's most prominent, painstakingly investigated. Sources close to the Obama transition say Pritzker's decision is not surprising given the nature of the vetting process, one they themselves have described as stressful.

--snip--

  It's just amusing how since they got no scandal to nail on Obama, they're trying to nail him for being too clean. This is such silly shit. I've read the questionnaire and it sure as shit isn't a big deal to answer- if you want to work for the President of the U.S. A security check for technicians working for the government, even as contractors, is as invasive so what the fuck is the big deal?

PB

[dkf]

1. I hope it scares off shady people.

And no one better be getting special treatment on this. If I find out they let someone slide I'm going to be pissed.

[annabanana]

2. CNN. ."Concern Central". . . . . . . .n/t

[monmouth]

3. You're right, and anyone knowing they will have problems in a background

check knows better (I hope) than to apply. I wouldn't make the first round...LOL. (Mis-spent youth and all that doncha know)...

[walldude]

4. LMFAO Yeah Obama doesn't need to be cautious,

I mean the Republicans aren't going to crawling up his ass with a microscope or anything. :eyes:

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

5. The virtue of the nation relies on the virtue of everyone involved in running it.

And I do mean everyone.

[Buzz Clik]

6. Nonsense. Neither the Senate nor the press will be kind to the nominees.

[peacetalksforall]

7. I'm glad he's doing this. Thrilled. They are going to come after the Dems,

especially Obama, with hatchets sharpened.

Gergen is ridiculous and a r w hack who pretends he's not.

[napi21]

8. That's just crazy. I googled the vetting list yesterday and read through

the whole thing. I'm not saying it wouldn't take a while to complete, but the questions asked are to make sure there are no surprises. Some of the unusual questions are:

Provide web adresses for any internet sites you have (ie: MySpace or FaceBook).

Have you sent any emails or posted anything on the internet that could embarrass you, your family or this administration?



The rest of the questions are ones I would have assumed have always been asked during proper vetting.

[zazen]

12. is there a person over 10 and under 50 who _hasn't_ sent an "embarrassing e-mail?"

Stuff that's meant to be private could be embarrassing in many contexts. Who hasn't bitched, however politely, about a boss, client or partner in an e-mail to a friend?

[blm]

9. Pritzker never wanted to be in cabinet - this article is BULLSHIT and likely aimed at making

the Clinton appointment appear squeaky clean, after all, Hillary passed 'stringent' protocol, right? Bill revealed 'some' of his donors, right? Bill's deal pushing for Dubai to get our Ports Deal netted him 20 million dollars and Obams's alleged screeners want to claim that's OK?

What a focking dog and pony show. CNN's big shareholders at the House of saud are getting what THEY wanted all along.....Clintons back on the world stage and protecting them and BushInc.

Whoever is advising Obama on the big appointments is a tool.

[FrenchieCat]

10. They are just setting him up.....

So that if they dig up dirt on someone who "passed" Obama's sniff test, they can say that he failed even when he tried. They will be asking, how did it happen.

They are not slick, even by half.

[NJCher]

11. hmmm, funny

I know Penny Pritzker from years ago (a decade) and I can't imagine anything shady in her background. She's pretty much a business as usual person. Maybe it's a privacy issue. If so, I can't blame her. I'm a relatively "clean" person myself but I would never expose my personal dealings to the public so I could hold public office. It just doesn't seem worth it.

They are indeed going the other direction: the news media is blaming Obama for being too circumspect!

Compared to what Republicans would have done, this is hilarious!!



Cher

[undeterred]

13. It also scares off good people who don't want

their private lives or those of their family made public.

[Cosmic Charlie]

14. If he is scaring off normal People, what chance do the Clintons have, really?.

[aquart]

16. Really good chance it seems.

<http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/11/22/hillary/>

Get over it, Clinton haters

Obama's choice of rival Hillary Clinton for secretary of state shows his political wisdom. And the vetting suggests the Clintons -- surprise! -- have little to hide.

By Joe Conason

-snip-

For one thing, it should be plain that the exhaustive "vetting" process brought to bear on Bill and Hillary Clinton, and especially on his foundation and his business dealings, must have revealed nothing of grave concern to the Obama transition officials assigned to examine him. If it is true, as reported, that he will no longer accept certain speaking engagements that might pose an appearance of conflict with his wife's position, that would be appropriate. It is equally likely, however, that the good work of his foundation will continue, since the Obama administration could scarcely wish to deprive a million or more impoverished people of the medicine and care that the former president has brought to them.

It will be interesting to see whether those who have raised the darkest suspicions about the former president will accept the benign assessment conferred on him by Obama.

Then again, perhaps this momentous transition will offer a chance to reopen the discussion of various canards about the Clinton years. Insinuations abound, as always, in such matters as the Holder nomination and his role in the pardon of Marc Rich, to take one example. But has anybody noticed that almost eight years later, the infamous financier has yet to set foot in the United States -- or to ask why? When Holder's name comes up for confirmation in the Senate, will anyone examine the real reasons that Clinton gave clemency to Rich -- and who asked him to do so? We shall see.

[Joe Chi Minh]

15. CNN - always burning with zeal for the common weal.