Tsa`ah
11-23-2008, 03:52 PM
When it comes to vetting potential high-level advisers, is President-elect Barack Obama too cautious for his own good?
As a presidential candidate, the former Illinois senator quickly adopted the nickname "No Drama Obama" for the meticulous level of prudence he applied to nearly every campaign speech, strategy decision and personnel appointment. The result was a nearly two-year-long presidential bid most notable for its seeming lack of a damaging gaffe or embarrassing misstep.
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.
"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.
Pritzker publicly took herself out of the running on Thursday, issuing a statement saying she had submitted no information to begin the vetting process and citing "obligations here in Chicago that make it difficult for me to serve at this time."
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.
I'm sorry ... but I don't think there's such a thing as "too cautious" when it comes to cabinet positions and other administration jobs.
Maybe the media is reading too much into this? Maybe they assume too much with Pritzker? After all, the woman chaired (and later remained on the board) of one of the first banks to go down in flames over subprime loans.
So maybe it was because she was behind a business model based on predatory lending? Perhaps, despite what the predictions were, commerce secretary wouldn't be the idea position for this woman?
As a presidential candidate, the former Illinois senator quickly adopted the nickname "No Drama Obama" for the meticulous level of prudence he applied to nearly every campaign speech, strategy decision and personnel appointment. The result was a nearly two-year-long presidential bid most notable for its seeming lack of a damaging gaffe or embarrassing misstep.
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.
"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.
Pritzker publicly took herself out of the running on Thursday, issuing a statement saying she had submitted no information to begin the vetting process and citing "obligations here in Chicago that make it difficult for me to serve at this time."
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.
I'm sorry ... but I don't think there's such a thing as "too cautious" when it comes to cabinet positions and other administration jobs.
Maybe the media is reading too much into this? Maybe they assume too much with Pritzker? After all, the woman chaired (and later remained on the board) of one of the first banks to go down in flames over subprime loans.
So maybe it was because she was behind a business model based on predatory lending? Perhaps, despite what the predictions were, commerce secretary wouldn't be the idea position for this woman?