Comments on: Obama’s vetting process is a good thing

By: Mike H

Mike H — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:56:29 +0000

You are absolutely correct. CNN seems to believe that Obama's vetting process maybe chasing away potential candidates. It is better to eliminate those people now rather than have them go down in flames in front of the media later. America has too many challenges to get caught up in petty b.s. like some guy/girl politician had an affair. Penny Pritzker is the latest candidate to bow out because of the rigorous vetting process. Let me tell you, in Penny's case, this is good new. Penny maybe a wonderful, honest business woman but it has been rumored that her family has had ties to organized crime going back generations. It may or may not be true but in the midst of trying to end the war in Iraq and turning around the worst economy since the Great Depression, Obama wouldn't want to have defend any accusations & potentially lose a key member of his economic team.

By: Sam I Am

Sam I Am — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:12:28 +0000

There is a very good reason why Obama is so carefully vetting potential members of his administration: the not-so-loyal opposition. Right now, even as I type, GOP operatives are scouring records trying to find something, anything about members of the new administration that they can use to discredit President-elect Obama. Obama understands that he lives in the world of dirty politics and yellow journalism. If one of his opponents or a not-so-scrupulous reporter finds a picture of one of his advisers screwing a goat, while smoking a joint when he was 18, it'll be all we hear about for months – while important issues get passed over. Obama has not said that he won't hire someone who doesn't have a spotless background, but he must know how the GOP will come at him and prepare for it. It's called opposition prep and it isn't limited to getting ready for a debate anymore. The GOP will do everything in its power to make the Obama presidency a failure. They do not have control of Congress anymore, so they'll have to resort to more Rovian tactics. Fortunately, Obama has already proved himself to be smarter than they are.

By: Tom

Tom — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 19:42:44 +0000

The truly ironic thing is that Obama with his past drug use and foreign family connections not only wouldn't pass his own screening process, but he wouldn't likely be eligible for a secret much less a top secret security clearance

By: william

william — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 14:56:44 +0000

More questions do not necessarily indicative of a better vetting process or yield better candidates for a role/job. In fact, I've seen where more requirements and questions indicates that a hiring manager isn't clear on what they are looking for – and that does turn off good candidates. Better questions and tighter relevancy to the role ARE helpful. This is what the new administration should be focusing on, but probably won't.

By: Joe

Joe — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 13:45:48 +0000

The second amendment is badly misinterpreted anyway – if Obama wants to interpret it in a way that reduces the number of guns out there, then I'm ll for it.

By: syzito

syzito — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 10:28:14 +0000

Obama's vetting process is necessary in order to try and avoid Bill Clintons mistake with all of the thugs he tried to promote. However Obama's questions about gun ownship is not necessary and shows his true colors concerning the second amendment and citizens “rights” with self defense and protection.