From your NYT link:

Jobs with the mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have served as lucrative incubators for Democratic and Republican administration officials. But those affiliations have become potentially toxic since the government seized both companies after years of financial irregularities that have stoked the economic crisis.  Not surprisingly, then, 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.

Will Rahm Emanuel make it from the White House-in-waiting in Chicago to the White House in Washington?  

President-elect Barack Obama's newly appointed chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, served on the board of directors of the federal mortgage firm Freddie Mac at a time when scandal was brewing at the troubled agency and the board failed to spot "red flags," according to government reports reviewed by ABCNews.com. . . . The entire board was later accused by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of having "failed in its duty to follow up on matters brought to its attention. . . ."

Heh, I don't know where all my resumes are, if they still exist. Me and controversy? Well, that all depends, lol!~ And my family history of things that could embarrass the poor man, I don't have enough energy to go there. Of course, if they supplied a list of things they find unacceptable, it could save everyone a lot of time (and perhaps be one heck of a good laugh . . )  ;)

"Do you have any associations with any organizations with ties to a foreign power or powers (or unbelievably wealthy and powerful individuals) that seek to have influence over the foreign policy of the US of A?"

Like AIPAC, perhaps?

It also doesn't ask you to reveal your poker tell or sexual proclivities. (long walks in the moonlight,i> sucking the blood of the innocent)

It also would allow Vegans terrorist to slip through undetected.

It is interesting that if this is put into a database, it could be very valuable for persuasion. Not unlike what Cheney apparently did with his phony VP vetting
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22060

As early as March 2000, Bush asked him whether he would consider taking the second slot. Cheney at first said no. Later, he agreed to serve as Bush's inspector of the qualifications of others; his lieutenants were David Addington and his daughter Liz. Some way into that work, Bush asked Cheney again, and this time he said yes. The understanding was concluded before any of the lesser candidates were interviewed. It was perhaps the first public deception that they worked at together: a lie of omission--and a trespass against probity--to give an air of legitimacy to the search for a nominee. But their concurrence in the stratagem, and the way each saw the other hold to its terms, signaled an equality in manipulation as no formal contract could have done. It is hardly likely that an exchange of words was necessary.

The vice-presidential search in the spring of 2000 was characteristic of the co-presidency to come in one other way. It involved the collection of information for future use against political rivals. In this case, the rivals were the other potential VPs, among them Lamar Alexander, Chuck Hagel, and Frank Keating. They had been asked to submit exhaustive data concerning friends, enemies, sexual partners, psychological vicissitudes (noting all visits to therapists of any kind), personal embarrassments, and sources of possible slander, plus a complete medical history. Each also signed a notarized letter that gave Cheney the power to request records from doctors without further clearance.

All this information would prove useful in later years. Barton Gellman reveals in Angler that soon after Frank Keating was mentioned as a likely candidate for attorney general, a story appeared in Newsweek about an awkward secret in his past: an eccentric patron had paid for his children's college education. No law had been broken, and nothing wrongly concealed; but the story killed a chance for Keating to be named attorney general; and the leak could only have come from one person. Doubtless most of the secrets in Cheney's possession were the more effective for not being used.

between the time it'll take applicants to gather all the requested data, and the FBI/Secret Service/Merry Maids to confirm it, we'll be well into the next century.

Will anyone make the cut?