Would-be Obama aides must disclose Web posts, Facebook profiles

If you want a job in an Obama administration, be prepared to disclose every blog post or comment you've ever written.

A nine-page questionnaire requires applicants to list--and if possible, provide copies of--all "posts or comments on blogs or other Web sites" they have ever made. Also required are "aliases" or nicknames used on those sites.

Translated into English, this means that President-elect Obama wants to know far more about you than his predecessors did. That requirement would force applicants to disclose information about Facebook and MySpace pages, profiles posted on dating Web sites, and even what was posted on Web sites like CNET and YouTube that allow readers to append comments.

Note that question doesn't only ask for potentially embarrassing or incendiary posts. It wants a list of "each" one.

It also asks for the URLs of "any Web sites that feature you in either a personal or professional capacity," and suggests MySpace and Facebook by name as examples. Dating sites like Match.com would be included, too.

Perhaps this won't be a problem for older Democrats vying for senior positions like treasury secretary or attorney general. But for today's Facebook-and-YouTube generation, requesting a list (and, "if readily available," a copy) of all Web site posts and comments the applicant ever made is not a trivial task to complete--and means that the Obama administration may not be quite as tech-savvy as its reputation would indicate.

These and other questions seem to represent Obama's plan to avoid the the Lani Guinier Effect. President Clinton appointed Guinier as assistant attorney general, and then was forced to withdraw her nomination in the face of severe criticism. Clinton claimed at the time that he had not read her writings favoring racial quotas.

Clinton also was forced to withdraw the nominations of Zoe Baird and Judge Kimba Wood for attorney general because of questions about whether they paid employment taxes for their nannies. President George W. Bush had the same problem with former New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, appointed to be Homeland Security secretary.

Obama's questionnaire seeks to remedy that problem. It asks four questions about domestic help, including housekeepers, babysitters, nannies, and gardeners. It asks about child support payments, information about enemies that may "criticize" your nomination, tax returns, loans, jobs held abroad, and so on.

One question asks: "Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information."

That's raised eyebrows among gun owners--and drawn fire from the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action--because there is no general federal requirement that guns be registered. Under federal law, it's possible to be given a firearm by a family member or purchase one from a private party without your name being included in a federal database. (Laws in a handful of states, including California, are more restrictive.)

In a 1996 survey sent to state politicians, Obama said he supports a law banning the "possession" of handguns. He also indicated he supported Washington, D.C.'s gun ban, which was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. His campaign Web site said the Second Amendment protects an individual right and noted that "millions of hunters and shooters own and use guns every year," but did not mention firearms used for self-defense.

[brianwolters]

Ah! The Ministry of Truth is being formed! You had better not have said anything bad about him!

[the_redistributor]

Yes indeed! This socialist is taking it straight from Stalin's playbook!! I hope the suckers that voted for Obama will start waking up!

[sebastien.kalonji]

It's a good idea from the Obama team but I think most people will or can not provide such information. I'm already 9 year on the net now and really don't know all the places I ever posted a comment. But it's good to know for the kids today to start logging their comments if they want such important jobs in the future.

I think this requirement might this time keep the best people from the right places.

[TxTodd]

Wow! This is extremely scary.... but most definitely "change".

[Get_Bent]

On the one hand, I understand why Obama's administration wants background info on potential job seekers. On the other hand, if you made posts under an alias that doesn't identify you, and you don't tell anyone about that alias, then Obama's administration has no business asking for this information. And the gun question is WAY out of line. I'd tell him where he can stuff his job opening.

They ask: "Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage."
They don't seem to understand that most states DON'T have Illinois style registration, that Chicago is an anomaly and an exception and that people don't casually go around shooting other people. Except maybe in Chicaso where their gun-ban has proven so effective...

Why don't they also ask: ?Do you or any members of your immediate family know a terrorist? If so, provide complete details about the individual. Has the terrorist ever attacked people or federal buildings? Please also describe how the crime was committed and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.?

[consultpeter]

"Priceless"!!! Hopefully you will send to your loyal servants in the House and Senate.

[dburr13]

Although such rules will help the new administration avoid potential embarrassment...It could also eliminate some of the best and brightest minds of the Internet generation from any consideration for jobs in the Obama administration...

[Magicland]

And just how is it going to do that? Provide the information, and maybe they get hired. Don't provide it, and don't get hired, it's their choice, and if they choose not to provide the info, they're obviously not the brightest or the best.

[Manhattan2]

That eliminates our chances of serving, That's ok. We think the private sector is where the answers will be found. The government can take a share but no more than 49%!

[lacykemp]

Didn't it say "If readily available?" So what if you don't have every single post and every single comment- I seriously doubt they would turn away a superior candidate if they didn't have every last quote. FWIW, I think it's a good idea to log comments anyway. Regardless, there's nothing wrong with trying to cover your ass. Everyone does it. The gun thing is kind of lame, but again, I'm sure that wouldn't rule someone out of a position.

[consultpeter]

ently BO does not believe in the Constitution of the United States of America, who would have thought!
"In a 1996 survey sent to state politicians, Obama said he supports a law banning the "possession" of handguns. He also indicated he supported Washington, D.C.'s gun ban, which was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. "

[trd1282]

WAIT JUST A MINUTE, aren't you people the same ones who scrutinized his affiliations (Ayers), and now you chide him for wanting to do something about it.

HYPOCRITES!!!

[ggordonliddy]

It's so funny (and EXTREMELY scary) how you Obama simpletons sway to his will. You know that so many of you would maim, torture, and kill your neighbors if "He" told you to. He would just need to word it the right way, telling you that certain people are the enemies of Him, you, and the Change We Can Believe In.

[Meiko34]

This is pretty disconcerting. First of all, I'd imagine that for many active social media participants, it would be a pretty daunting task to submit a record of all "posts or comments on blogs or other Web sites"ever made. (How do you even go about doing this? And what happens if you were to have (oops!) missed a couple? Does the "hey, cool post!" count as a comment worthy of this "list"?)

I can kind of understand the rhyme and reason but can't say I agree with it.
Politics aside, I'd just be curious to see someone actually pull one of these things together.

[mikeburek]

Yeah, it sucks to be asked these questions, but these are the questions that the entire US Gov't will research when you apply (or they should be), and the news reporters will research all of these and more (harsh, but a good thing), and citizens should be allowed to know about the people making decisions about the country.

I saw it as just being upfront about what will be collected about applicants. Not that his administration-to-be doesn't know how to do it themselves, or that he is researching an individual more than others have.

If you individually, or through your employer, do any contract work for the State of Texas, you have to submit a 20+ page background questionnaire that asks for names of _all_ relatives, friends, and boy/girlfriends going back to your childhood. It doesn't matter if you're just repainting parking lines in a parking lot and never go inside a state building, or if you are doing some work on their e-mail server and have read access to all emails.

[jshale]

I don't know if an employer has the right in all situations to view every e-mail and web posting one's ever made, but it's understandable why the Obama Administration doesn't want any Internet surprises blowing up a nominee. Work e-mail has been public property for years now, and unfortunately it appears private e-mails and web postings will be considered the same if they can be shown to have a negative effect on someone's job performance, i.e., a careless posting that could be politically embarrassing.