You gotta be kiddin’ !!

This is the most intrusive employment questionnaire ever. It’s reasonable to query top level appointees about their backgrounds as well as their spouses and children. But the questionnaire goes to such ridiculous lengths, asking about any and all “resumes and biographical statements issued by you or any other entity at your discretion or consent over the past 10 years.” In its zeal to avoid any controversies arising, the Administration is discouraging many talented people from applying. Once they look at what’s being asked, I know many will say “why bother”? This is ironic: Question 18 of the Obama application asks whether “you, your spouse or any member of your immediate family” have been affiliated with Fannie, Freddie, American International Group, Washington Mutual and any other institution getting a government bailout. Rahm Emanuel was on the board of directors for Freddie Mac when Freddie overstated profits by billions of dollars and the board failed to spot any “red flags.” So maybe it means that there aren’t automatic disqualifiers in the application process?

This sounds altogether prudent to me. The truth may not disqualify an applicant, but at least the administration will know in advance if any potential dust-ups could arise. Plus, it’s bound to discourage anyone who has too much to hide.

hey, I think it’s the kind of test that’s given last in order of interviewing and such

Good for Obama! AS Dee and Corinne have stated, being honest on your application does not mean disqualification necessarily. With all the tabloid gossip and party fighting(that being on both sides) It has become prudent to know as much as you can about any person you are bringing in to the Administration. Frankly it is about time that this take place. I for one am tired of the President picking persons that for the next month or so, all we hear about is they did this or they know this person. IT would be a breath of fresh air to have confidence in our President and his Administration. What jobs are more important than those that are the Countries top leaders? This mornings buzz, is all about Hillary Clinton being considered for Secretary Of State…They had a meeting yesterday to discuss? So that has more of my interest than, How detailed a questioner someone that wants to be considered for the most important jobs in our country has to fill out. Let this President Elect do what he thinks is in the best interest of his Administration, so that he can do what will be in the best interest of our country. Let’s quit looking for trouble and give him a chance!!!

The affirmative action candidate has struck again . Implementing standards to which he was not held. I would add executive experience, past employment history, etc… to this application. This guy couldn’t pass a security clearance yet alone his own employment test. Since his hands were in that Fannie/Freddie cookie jar more than any other Senator, besides Chris Dodd, Obama would immediately fail a third of the questions. Good grief, if they asked about associates, he couldn’t even qualify as the dog walker. Funny, America should take a look at “his” employee application; it may cause many to regret their vote…. On the Hillary note… It is a shame how she was treated during this campaign. I being a black conservative woman can appreciate any woman breaking the glass ceiling, even if I don’t agree with her policies. But we as women need to take a long hard look at how Sarah and Hillary were both treated. Very different in policy, yet both held to a much higher standard than Obama. Hillary was said to be riding Bill’s coat tails. Sarah was dismissed because she was in a beauty contest. How sad that two very smart accomplished women were destroyed by the media and the american public because of their gender. If I were Hillary, I would tell Obama to “stuff it”!

What MAY be ‘different’, to some, is that the ‘vetting process’ , or that there is a background check, is being made public this time, whereas it never was in the past—-and we really don;t know if Obama is doing something ‘new’, now do we? Most employment I have ever secured, required a background check first, before I was given the job……was I ‘special?’…no…but the more the company is regulated, or dependant on non-disclosure of company secrets, the more in depth was the background check. I recall being interviewed for a Director Position , in one company, that contributed to the work at NASA—-and they hired a Private Investigator to research my history, to see if what I said, was what they discovered! (I was hired, BTW)…..and to determine if there was something I was hiding from them. Has anyone here EVER worked for the government, in a ‘sensitive’ job? The position I was seeking was in no way ‘sensitive’, but the company that I was seeking the position from, was indeed doing sensitive work…. The disclosures required by Obama may seem ‘unusual”…but what is unusual to me, is that those who want to work with him are being asked up front—-instead of being investigated in a clandestine way, behind their backs. I once knew a woman, who used to say, “if you murdered your mother, tell me. I will then know who I am dealing with. But if you DON’t tell, and I find out from someone else, I will no longer be able to trust you,”

You know what ladies…..we have had an alcoholic, druggie, slack jaw, inarticulate country boy running our White House for the last 8 years. It will take time for all of us to get use to and recognize a real, intelligent, articulate, and decisive and in control, thoughtful and attention to detail man leading our country. It will take some time, but you can do it. One of the necessary steps he will have to do is assure that he is surrounded with only the best men and women to help see his objectives are reached. He realizes that no matter how great someone is face to face, they may have “baggage” that could bring embarrassment and unnecessary drama on his presidency. So to all the women on this site who are dismissing the manner in which he is vetting employees that will serve in his administration, since you think he is wrong, what would you suggest? If you think his questions are overkill, what questions should he ask? If he appoints someone to a position and down the road it is discovered that person was involved in something that they shouldn’t have been, you women would be the first one’s posting “See, he didn’t even take the time to check them out first.” And now that he is vetting them in full before offering a position you ladies are offering up “Give me a break….overkill.” There’s a post on the site that addresses women and how they respond to accusations of rape. Many including myself have offered up the disservice women who cry rape when it had not incurred, as diminishing the importance when it DOES indeed occur. It’s not taken seriously. The same can be said for women such as some of you who whine, complain and find humor in PE Obama’s actions. Why not wait until you have an actual issue to voice an opinion on? Because as it is now, you’re coming across as a bunch of woman who are miffed that your candidates didn’t win. There are few things uglier than a sore loser.