William Daley, Obama’s Corporate Ambassador?

For months the Obama White House has been hounded by complaints–mostly from the right, but sometimes also from the center-left–that it has done an inept job of communicating with corporate America at a moment of economic crisis. Some of that was to be expected, naturally. Big business always leans Republican. And Obama’s core first-term agenda–health care reform, Wall Street reform, and a climate change bill–all poked the business community (with important exceptions on every front,  to be sure) in the gut. But even the president himself has admitted a failure to communicate clearly with the business community. (“I’ve got to take responsibility in terms of making sure that I make clear to the business community as well as to the country that the most important thing we can do is to boost and encourage our business sector and make sure that they’re hiring,” Obama said at his Nov. 3 post-election press conference.)

Obama may be about to make a dramatic gesture to that effect. Word is leaking that the president may tap bank executive and former Commerce Secretary William Daley to be his next chief of staff. Corporate America could hardly ask for a stronger signal of empathy from the West Wing. Daley, 62, is an archetypal face of the 1990s pro-business wing of the Democratic Party. He joined the Clinton administration in 1993 with the specific mission of helping the president pass the North American Free Trade Agreement over strong opposition from labor and Congressional liberals. As Commerce Secretary Daley also led the fight for permanent normal trade relations with China, also anathema to the unions. Labor animus was so great that, when Al Gore named Daley his 2000 presidential campaign manager, AFL-CIO president John Sweeney declared Daley’s positions had put him “squarely on the opposite side of working families.” (Daley may be best remembered from that campaign for his dramatic appearance onstage at 3:10 am on election night in Nashville to declare that Gore had called George W. Bush and withdrawn his earlier concession in anticipation of a recount.)

Since then Daley has been making a handsome living as a corporate executive, most recently on the executive board of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co and on the boards of several other big corporations, including Boeing and the giant drug maker Merck. Over that time Daley’s pro-business views haven’t changed: Some liberals are already up in arms about Daley’s ties to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has furiously battled the Obama agenda, and where Daley co-chaired a 2007 commission which called for deregulation of U.S. financial markets less than two years before the 2008 financial meltdown. (A Chamber spokesman declined to comment on the Daley speculation.) Daley also opposed the financial reform bill’s creation of a new consumer protection agency, an office dear to many Democrats and grassroots liberals. And he has suggested that Obama misread the national political mood when he pushed a sweeping health care reform bill, telling the Times that in 2008 the U.S. “moved to center left — not left.”

Of course, there’s far, far more to being White House chief of staff than making nice with American industry. And Daley, who learned his craft in Chicago’s most famous political family, is known as a master political operative. In June 2000 the New York Times described “broad agreement among those who know him that Mr. Daley is perhaps the best political mind in President Clinton’s cabinet.” At turns gentle and brutish–that same Times profile called him “vindictive” and “Machiavellian”–Daley has been described throughout his career as the kind of focused, get-things-done, no-drama manager that Obama likes to rely on. (It doesn’t hurt either that Daley has close ties to Obama’s Chicago inner circle, including former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and senior advisors David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett.) And it’s not as though Daley can”t countenance a bad word about big business. It was shortly after he joined the Gore campaign in June 2000 that the candidate refocused his message around the populist theme of “powerful forces and powerful interests,” including big energy and health corporations, squashing the little guy in America.

That said, William Daley’s appointment as chief of staff, should it happen, would hardly be a sign that Barack Obama intends to spend the next two years digging in against the GOP and corporate America. Quite the contrary.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • Paul-no not that one

    About time that someone speaks for Big Business.
    .
    They have gone far too long without a seat at the table.

  • http://grapemusing.blogspot.com/ grape_crush

    …where Daley co-chaired a 2007 commission which called for deregulation of U.S. financial markets less than two years before the 2008 financial meltdown.

    You can read that Commission’s report and executive summary here, at least until it’s taken down:

    http://www.uschamber.com/reports/commission-regulation-us-capital-markets-21st-century

  • http://shortplaysaboutrealpeople.wordpress.com Michael Maiello

    “…has done an inept job of communicating with corporate America at a moment of economic crisis.”

    What does that mean? I honestly don’t think you know and as I ponder it, I don’t think it actually means anything. Obama certainly spent more time meeting with Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein than he did with troubled mortgage borrowers, so you can’t mean that. It was business, not patients, who got the inside track on HCA negotiations, so you can’t mean that. Once again banks, not customers, got the inside track on Dodd Frank, so you can’t mean that. All the business executives got to keep their tax rates, so you can’t mean that.

    Are you implying that somehow “better communicating” would have convinced the energy industry that cap and trade makes sense? Are you implying that businesses will hire more people at better wages if the President learns to ask more nicely?

    What on Earth do you mean?

  • http://grapemusing.blogspot.com/ grape_crush

    They have gone far too long without a seat at the table.
    .
    Ease up on the sarcasm, PNNTO. You might offend our corporate overlords and then we’ll have to find new ways of begging for scraps.

  • apr2563

    https://www1.wsws.org/articles/2009/apr2009/pers-a06.shtml
    .
    This was as of 2009. How many ambassadors does he need?
    .

    The case of Lawrence Summers, director of the National Economic Council and Obama’s top economic adviser, highlights the politically incestuous character of relations between the Obama administration and the American financial elite.

    Last year, Summers pocketed $5 million as a managing director of D.E. Shaw, one of the biggest hedge funds in the world, and another $2.7 million for speeches delivered to Wall Street firms that have received government bailout money. This includes $45,000 from Citigroup and $67,500 each from JPMorgan Chase and the now-liquidated Lehman Brothers.

    For a speech to Goldman Sachs executives, Summers walked away with $135,000. This is substantially more than double the earnings for an entire
    year of high-seniority auto workers, who have been pilloried by the Obama administration and the media for their supposedly exorbitant and “unsustainable” wages.

    Alluding diplomatically to the flagrant conflict of interest revealed by these disclosures, the New York Times noted on Saturday: “Mr. Summers, the director of the National Economic Council, wields important influence over Mr. Obama’s policy decisions for the troubled financial industry, including firms from which he recently received payments.”

    Summers was a leading advocate of banking deregulation. As treasury secretary in the second Clinton administration, he oversaw the lifting of basic financial regulations dating from the 1930s. The Times article notes that among his current responsibilities is deciding “whether—and how—to tighten regulation of hedge funds.”

    Summers is not an exception. He is rather typical of the Wall Street insiders who comprise a cabinet and White House team that is filled with multi-millionaires, presided over by a president who parlayed his own political career into a multi-million-dollar fortune.

    Michael Froman, deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs, worked for Citigroup and received more than $7.4 million from the bank from January of 2008 until he entered the Obama administration this year. This included a $2.25 million year-end bonus handed him this past January, within weeks of his joining the Obama administration.

    Citigroup has thus far been the beneficiary of $45 billion in cash and over $300 billion in government guarantees of its bad debts.

    David Axelrod, the Obama campaign’s top strategist and now senior adviser to the president, was paid $1.55 million last year from two consulting firms he controls. He has agreed to buyouts that will garner him another $3 million over the next five years. His disclosure claims personal assets of between $7 and $10 million.

    Obama’s deputy national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, was paid $3.9 million by a Washington law firm whose major clients include Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and the private equity firm Apollo Management.

    Louis Caldera, director of the White House Military Office, made $227,155 last year from IndyMac Bancorp, the California bank that heavily promoted subprime mortgages. It collapsed last summer and was placed under federal receivership.

    The presence of multi-millionaire Wall Street insiders extends to second- and third-tier positions in the Obama administration as well. David Stevens, who has been tapped by Obama to head the Federal Housing Administration, is the president and chief operating officer of Long and Foster Cos., a real estate brokerage firm. From 1999 to 2005, Stevens served as a top executive for Freddie Mac, the federally-backed mortgage lending giant that was bailed out and seized by federal regulators in September.

    Neal Wolin, Obama’s selection for deputy counsel to the president for economic policy, is a top executive at the insurance giant Hartford Financial Services, where his salary was $4.5 million.

    Obama’s Auto Task Force has as its top advisers two investment bankers with a long resume in corporate downsizing and asset-stripping.

    It is not new for leading figures from finance to be named to high posts in a US administration. However, there has traditionally been an effort to demonstrate a degree of independence from Wall Street in the selection of cabinet officials and high-ranking presidential aides, often through the appointment of figures from academia or the public sector. In previous decades, moreover, representatives of the corporate elite were more likely to come from industry than from finance.

    In the Obama administration such considerations have largely been abandoned.

    This will not come as a surprise to those who critically followed Obama’s election campaign. While he postured before the electorate as a critic of the war in Iraq and a quasi-populist force for “change,” he was from the first heavily dependent on the financial and political backing of powerful financiers in Chicago. Banks, hedge funds and other financial firms lavishly backed his presidential bid, giving him considerably more than they gave to his Republican opponent, Senator John McCain.

    Alongside Wall Street, the Obama cabinet is dominated by the military, including three recently retired four-star military officers: former Marine General James Jones as national security adviser; Admiral Dennis Blair as director of national intelligence, and former Army Chief of Staff Erik Shinseki as secretary of veterans’ affairs.

    These are the deeply reactionary political and class interests that are represented by the Obama administration.

    Friday’s financial disclosures further expose the bankruptcy of American democracy. Elections have no real effect on government policy, which is determined by the interests of the financial aristocracy that dominates both political parties. The working class can fight for its own interests—for jobs, decent living standards, health care, education, housing and an end to war—only through a break with the two parties of American capitalism and the development of a mass, independent socialist movement.

    .
    Crowley, instead of repeating the Village talking point that Obama has not been a friend of Wall Street, why not look past the whining of the plutocracy and not buy into the current conventional wisdom.

  • 53_3

    They’ve moved beyond begging for scraps. With Citizens United, they have the same status and protections as you and me, giving their CEO’S what amounts to multiple votes.
    .
    I have a hunch that the scraps we are fighting with them over are the ones we would have gotten if we had just learned to STFU.
    .
    But that’s ok. Down the pike are probably laws that will allow them to fix those damned employment laws…

  • Paul-no not that one

    Funny conclusion.
    .
    Who, and I mean this seriously as g_c feels I may be a bit sarcastic, ever for a minute thought that BHO would “(dig) in against the GOP and corporate America.”?
    .
    When has he?

  • liberalmeltdown

    Boy that Hopey Changey guy sure looks a lot like TSOS. Chicago politics all the way baby. We always want a little somethin’ somethin’ for ourselves when we “give” away.
    .
    Nobody should trust this administration. Obama continues to prove that he never does what he says. The only thing that matters is political gain and fooling the masses. Any businessman with half a brain can spot a con job as old a Chicago politics. Of course there will be those that pay to play, like GE. Your government sets the rules, changes the rules, takes a little cash to “help” some corporations deal with the rules that they (Obama administration sets) and then of course Big Business is the bad guy.
    .
    Now for the chorus of anti-business leftists…

  • 53_3

    cue the kazoos…
    .
    bring in the triangles…
    .
    It’s crackpot time. Time to go bananas…

  • http://grapemusing.blogspot.com/ grape_crush

    When has he?
    .
    *crickets*
    .
    He’s basically kowtowed to corporate America while managing to salvage enough scrap from his policy agenda to not totally suck. Still far better than what we would get with GOPers in charge, but half measure policy and coddling of your political opponents isn’t good enough, is it?

  • http://shortplaysaboutrealpeople.wordpress.com Michael Maiello

    I can only surmise that you have no idea at all what you meant. Which is odd, since you wrote it and all.

  • http://elvisberg.wordpress.com Elvis Elvisberg

    http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/11/12/money-and-the-midterms-are-the-parties-over-interview-with-thomas-ferguson-26869/?author=1

    For years I’ve promised people that I’ll tell you who bought your candidate before you vote for him or her, by simply applying my “investment theory of political parties.” When I analyzed the early money in Obama’s campaign in March, 2008, it was impossible not to see that many of the people responsible for the financial crisis were major Obama supporters. As I wrote for TPM, serious financial reform would not be on President Obama’s agenda.

    -
    See also Jeffrey Sachs– not exactly an anti-capitalist– writing here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/27/useconomy-us-politics

    The problem is America’s corrupted politics and loss of civic morality. One political party, the Republicans, stands for little except tax cuts, which they place above any other goal. The Democrats have a bit wider set of interests, including support for healthcare, education, training, and infrastructure. But, like the Republicans, the Democrats, too, are keen to shower tax cuts on their major campaign contributors, predominantly rich Americans.

    The result is a dangerous paradox. The US budget deficit is enormous and unsustainable. The poor are squeezed by cuts in social programmes and a weak job market. One in eight Americans depends on food stamps to eat. Yet, despite these circumstances, one political party wants to gut tax revenues altogether, and the other is easily dragged along, against its better instincts, out of concern for keeping its rich contributors happy.

    This tax-cutting frenzy comes, incredibly, after three decades of elite fiscal rule in the US that has favoured the rich and powerful.

    -
    So, yeah. The decline and fall of the American empire.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    Maybe this will stop Obama from following all those radical socialist policies he is famous for?

  • earljr1

    You have hit the nail right on the head, liberalmeltdown. What DOES Obama stand for, anyway? He is a “will o wisp”, all over the chart on about every issue and if he does take a stand on anything, it is subject to change depending on the wind’s direction. As april correctly pointed out, his own cronies are making millions and America continues drift, rudderless and without direction.

  • nflfoghorn

    No, ’cause Earljr, LMD, RustFreep et.al. still hate him.

  • Art Pepper

    So Daley was against even the very weak financial reforms that Obama supported? That sounds like a great addition to the team.

    Incidentally, my New Year’s resolution was to be less sarcastic. That lasted about 10 minutes.

  • liberalmeltdown

    To those that haven’t noticed that the only thing that benefits from government “policy” is Big Government, it’s time to pull your heads out.
    .
    Where did all those “shovel ready jobs” go?
    .
    With unemployment hovering near 10 percent nearly two years after President Obama signed his economic stimulus package, Mr. Obama is acknowledging that, despite his campaign promises, “there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects.”
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20019468-503544.html
    .
    Those “green jobs”?
    .
    We have public employees with fat pensions and benefits with no private sector jobs to pay for them.
    .
    Government rarely gets it right. Example: The failure of “cash for clunkers” which cost us $24,000 for each ADDITIONAL car that was sold.
    .
    To conduct the analysis, the Edmunds.com team of PhDs and statisticians examined the sales trend for luxury vehicles and others not included in Cash for Clunkers, and applied the historic relationship of those vehicles to total SAAR to make informed estimates. These estimates were independently verified through careful examination of sales patterns reflected by transaction data. Once the numbers were determined, Edmunds.com’s analysts divided three billion dollars by 125,000 vehicles to arrive at the average $24,000 per vehicle.
    .
    http://www.edmunds.com/about/press/cash-for-clunkers-results-finally-in-taxpayers-paid-24000-per-vehicle-sold-reports-edmundscom.html?articleid=159446&
    .
    Thanks Big Government for buying 125,000 cars for people that would have bought them anyway, only at a later date. I can’t wait for more great policies.

    .

  • carotexas1

    I know I missed a lot when I was in hospital, but what is wrong with the COS he chose when Rahm left?
    I guess he is too quiet and not a headline grabber.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    There was that sigh of exasperation Obama expressed when the bankers, who received 100 cents on the dollar to cover their gambling debts, handed out bonuses like nothing had happened. Surely Obama was flirting with communism then, thus requiring a moderating influence to be brought in to try and reign him in.

  • deconstructiva

    Sorry to hear you were in the hospital. Hope you’re done with therapy and all the insurance stuff kicked in for the bill. You didn’t miss much here, same ol’ …bickering. As for COS, I’m presuming Rusty declined the invitation to replaqce Rahm. Heck, Obama once tried to get Judd Gregg to join Team O, so why not some mad-as-hell TP’er from Galt’s Gulch?

  • http://leaderscorp.wordpress.com leaderscorp

    Well it’s obvious that all the new laws, rules and regulation is structured and developed to the benefit of 2 parties, the client which is noble and letting only the big banks take over the mortgage industry. Well the question that rise, how will the mortgage bankers / correspondent lenders pay their loan officers more then what bank of America, Wells Fargo, Chase pay their loan officers and stay competitive with the big banks?

    The answer to that is something that lot of people are waiting for, and besides that everyone is anxious to see how things is going to fall in place, knowing that mortgage brokers and mortgage bankers loan officers are not a breed that enjoy the corporate way of doing business, and knowing that the big banks are not going to be hiring any new people due to the fact that they are going to be hammered with employment applications by loan officers, and that’s when crisis rise again and create more trouble in this industry.

    I see another wave of crisis for the mortgage industry that is coming, and this time it is going to really hurt and take little longer for everyone to adjust, also it’s going to reflect some unemployment and some financial crisis to some more people that are working hard and surviving out of today’s mortgage industry, the question is when is the crisis going to end for the people that are struggling to survive in today’s economy and decided not to leave the mortgage industry and decided not to work for the banks.

    I believe the answer to that, would be for the mortgage brokers and mortgage bankers to give more then what the big banks are giving to the public and to the real estate industry. It’s a simple philosophy give and you will get much more in return. We have set our path for 2011 strategy and the execution of our strategy will begin in January 15th of 2011. Our strategy will create opportunities for real estate agents to have more business and develop for them a strategy for continuous growth in return to have a massive bonding strategy between the real estate agents in our market with our loan officers in exchange for the value that is provided by the services and the strategies we bring to our industry. All we would like to ask for the loan officers, the mortgage brokers and mortgage bankers that are in the industry and they are facing some financial trouble or facing frustration of growth and development for their office or their company to join us on Facebook and join our company so we could put our hands together and promote what banks can’t promote, give the public and the real estate industry something that has never been provided and asking nothing in return.

    Our formula for success in 2011 is the way of conquering markets, it’s the new way to conquer this industry lets come together and turn this industry to our benefit and show the banks how hard it is going to be for them when we are taking their business away, and how much this industry is in a need for our breed of professionals.

    facebook: http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=164247740284042&v=app_6009294086

    twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/georgesleaders

  • akismet-8970f61dd51630cf920a41be8c8dc93b

    He’s been President for 2 years now: if you’re liberal and continue to believe Barack Obama stands behind all your principles and is the savior of the progressive movement, or conservative and are still clinging to the caricature of him as a “Socialist Marxist anti-American terrorist sympathizer”…it’s about time both sides of the aisle grow up:
    After 2 years: The REAL Obama Can Now Stand Up

blog comments powered by Disqus