So lemme get this straight: the Obama transition team's vetting process is too invasive. That's the current line, according to this CNN article:
But some political observers say the president-elect's similar caution with respect to recruiting new administration officials and key high-level advisers may be turning away a string of qualified candidates wary of subjecting themselves and their families to the most rigid presidential vetting process on record.
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.
David, methinks, would never dare suggest that it's remotely possible these people have embarrassing secrets to hide.
/eye/roll/
Yeah, of course this is "silly" for him to have such stringent requirements, after all it is not like the whole right wingnuttery isn't just waiting with baited breath to go digging into each and every person's backround to just find anything to try and create trouble, right?
All one has to do is look at the firestorm that John Edwards had to deal with, over a couple of perfectly respectable bloggers that were at best guilty of being perhaps a bit too colorful in their language or dared to challege the words of idiot religious figures like William Donahue (opps, there go my chances) to see what lurks right around the corner from an errant blog post or a "tie" something "unsavory" (no matter how remotely).
It seems like right now after the past 21 months of elections, that the press is bored and can't wait for something controversial, so the need to generate "controversy" over anything they can find.
Posted by: The Daft Dem | November 22, 2008 at 04:52 PM
Of course they're being careful. Anyone remember Zoe Baird? They've learned from past mistakes.
As a volunteer who was sometimes called upon to speak on behalf of BSF4O and, by default, the campaign, I was vetted. All of our volunteers who made public appearances and media contacts were vetted as well. And we weren't even getting paid....
Posted by: Lawyer Mama (Stephanie Himel-Nelson) | November 22, 2008 at 06:47 PM
I just find it laughable that if someone chooses to not participate in the vetting process that the press would suggest it's somehow all *just too much* and *so terribly invasive* for those poor, put-upon candidates - when, in fact, it's likely those very candidates have done something suspect and it would be found out if they were thoroughly researched. Please, can anyone help me understand why David Gergen/et al feel that the candidates are still perfectly viable? Because, frankly, while I understand no one is perfect, I still believe it's possible for people to be ethical and principled and to carry those ethics and principles into political office (Obama, for example).
Why doesn't the press see it that way?
p.s. Argh.
Posted by: lildb | November 22, 2008 at 07:08 PM
If they have nothing to hide...bring on the vetting!
Posted by: TINYMARIE | November 23, 2008 at 08:55 AM