That Obama Administration Job Application

Ironic indeed!

McDonald's or Carl's Jr. would have put Obama under more scrutiny for a fry cook position than the so-called "mainstream media" did for this relatively unknown, first-term U.S. Senator running for (and now, ascending to) the Office of President of the United States!

And they wonder why their ratings/circulation figures are in the tank?

In the wake of this 2008 Campaign, the "Big 3", along with most major newspapers, have lost any and all credibility as "objective journalists" with me. And I'm NOT the only one!

"Fairness and accuracy" in reporting?

Give me a break!!

Ironic.

Obama would not be hired for his own team.

Hopefully now with this new job application we could find serious government officials, who really do care about helping the American people.

I wonder why the mainstream media didn't ask these very same questions of our President-Elect prior to the election...

I said this before in another post bu; president-elect Obama is correct it is better to do a valid vetting then to end up with a "Palin" type.

There is nothing wrong with asking those question. It is better to be safe, then sorry later on. Beside, if you have nothing to hire, then answer the questions.

Looks like David Axelrod's astroturfers would have to out themselves with this questionnaire.

gael

lets work out a swap...

Obama will turn over all the what I think is silly stuff your worried about,
in exchange for Bush turning over all the:
torture, justice dept emails, illegal wiretapping info et.al.....

I think Obama would go for that, how 'bout you?

Don't be silly! the purpose of the questionnaire is not to restrict access (even Obama himself, Rahm Emanual,Joe Biden couldn't "pass" the vet. It is for CONTROL! It is to gather info about vulnerabilites and weaknesses that can then be exploited to pressure people to conform to the ObamaThugocracy. How ridiculous! Some of this is a violation of privacy! Trying to get emails? And the arrogance of an administration asking for info, when TheAnointedOne refuses to produce his: Birth certificate, school records, loan info, school writings, association info, CAC records, CAMPAIGN DONATION info!!! Come on! "tough vetting"? Ridiculous! He works for US and WE demand this info and he says "Nah..." Don't be stupid, people. None of what he does is for Your Good.

From a surface view, the application process looks very excessive and like good SNL material. But it's also a means for making a smooth transition, without appointments to posts becoming the object of media vetting. The immediate focus of an Obama administration should be on economic and international problem solving, not damage control over positions.

Obama has spent his whole life chasing the next challenge, never holding down a steady job, using people to get ahead.

And when things got too difficult he simply voted present, or threw people under the bus when he was done with them.

Now that he has reached the highest goal I bet he is scared to death. He can't run away or vote present this time.

He'll try to blame Bush or racist if he falters but at some point BO will finally take all the blame.

Obama understands the importance of vetting; that is why he did not allow himself to be vetted.

obama wasnt vetted, so why should he vet anyone

I agree with the posting by Question. If I was in Obama's position, I would certainly want to know what kinds of issues might crop up from someone's past and exactly what their affiliations are. ABC news really ought to clarify this point.

We should all be glad these types of questions ARE being asked of those who want to be appointed. Too many positions have been filled in the past by people who had affiliations that should have disqualified them, only to come out later as embarrassing. While very few people, even the most upstanding, would be able to answer all of the questions without hitting a hitch - especially the email one - I think ABC is missing the point. Nowhere do they say answering affirmative to any of these questions will exclude a person from being selected, they just want to be aware of potential issues. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

This is only information about the person applying for a specific job, I don't think negative answers will keep you from being hired. I would like to know who is in my house too.

No more invasive than the vetting for access to classified information...many of us voluntarily take lifestyle and counter intelligence polygraphs. No big deal.

A tough application for anyone living in the 21st century to pass with flying colors. But, in this age when the media as well as administration opponents jump at any opportunity to sensationalize any reports of hiring screw-ups, I think it's a necessary process.

Don't be silly. Nowhere in that questionnaire does it say that the answer to those questions would disqualify you from the job you are applying to. Anyone who has been through a university application would know that applications ask all sorts of questions; the main point is that you make yourself known for who you are and explain yourself so that they may know what kind of person you are. Fair enough. It really doesn't say you will be turned down if you answered those questions in a certain way.

Anyways, I am defending this questionnaire with all my might because i do think i can pass it fairly easily. The problem is how to get through to the people who receive the applications. Jake, help.

And finally, I just want to point out that journalists need to back off from this vetting of the vetting process in this sarcastic manner (that reporter in your video). The hiring people have a job to do and I am quite glad that they are doing it the way they think it should be done. We all know that the media would be all over it if somebody was to be hired and it was found out (BY THE MEDIA) that any of those questions on the questionnaire turned out to be true. Just sayin'