Bits Blog: On Twitter, Steve Jobs Is Immortal

Steve Jobs is gone, but on Twitter his @name lives on. And on.

The chief executive of Apple, who died in 2011, is memorialized on Twitter by about a thousand fans, parodists, traffic seekers, unrepentant haters and crypto-historians, among others. The accounts use his name as either as a title or, with many variations, as an address.

The copycats include @FakeSteveJobs, @FauxSteve and @SteveJobsFalso, a collection of admitted imposters who are following in the footsteps of a parody Web site that was active from 2006 to 2011. Other versions include @RememberSteve, @PulseonJobs and @RealSteveJobs. There are a couple of @BlackSteveJobs, plus Twitter accounts by various articles of clothing and body parts.

Several of the accounts are operated by start-ups hoping to generate attention for themselves. Their tweets contain links to corporate Web pages. Some of the accounts are in languages like Arabic, Thai or Japanese. Many others use Mr. Jobs’s name for the account but have a different address.

Searching the name “Steve Jobs” on Twitter yields about 1,080 accounts, some of which are unrelated to the Apple co-founder; there are people on Twitter who are really named Steve Jobs.

Twitter does not keep score of how many of its 140 million accounts are fakes, but it generally supports the idea of parody accounts. “It’s very helpful for political dissidents, who can’t write under their own name,” said Rachael Horwitz, a company spokeswoman. She also noted that Dick Costolo, Twitter’s chief executive, has a parody account. Jack Dorsey, the chairman of the company’s board, is likewise roasted.

Possibly for his close identification with technology, Mr. Jobs does appear to be the most popular identity on Twitter to leverage. President Obama has about 600 versions of his name, either through the “@” address, or in the name of the account. Given much of the venom of the recent election, several of these accounts are remarkably ugly, certainly worse than the treatment afforded Mr. Jobs. Michelle Obama, who like the president has an official and verified Twitter account, has about 500 copycats.

Bill Gates, Mr. Jobs’s longtime nemesis and eventual frenemey, does better than the president and first lady, with about 840 imitators and parodists. There is also a Klingon version of him, which to date Mr. Jobs’s name does not appear to share. There also appear to be a lot more people on Twitter who are simply named “Bill Gates,” a characteristic that must fill their lives with a lot of predictable humor.

Justin Beiber gets a mere 240 people hoping for a bit of his lustre. John Lennon, Mr. Jobs’ idol, has fewer than 100.

Twitter will take down parody accounts, but usually when it is not clear that they are parodies. That is not a problem in the case of most public figures. “It’s a form of speech,” Ms. Horwitz said. On the Internet, everyone needs a thicker skin. The situation does come up enough that the company has published formal policies on acceptable parody and fan accounts , along with impersonation.

There are parody accounts for Oracle’s chief executive, Larry Ellison; for Larry Page, the chief executive and co-founder of Google; and for Mark Zuckerberg, the chief of Facebook. With so many parody accounts around, some technology chief executives may worry if they are not being parodied.

Read More..

Citing Affair, Petraeus Resigns as C.I.A. Director

WASHINGTON — David H. Petraeus, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency and one of America’s most decorated four-star generals, resigned on Friday after an F.B.I. investigation uncovered evidence that he had been involved in an extramarital affair.

Mr. Petraeus issued a statement acknowledging the affair after President Obama accepted his resignation and it was announced by the C.I.A. The disclosure ended a triumphant re-election week for the president with an unfolding scandal.

Government officials said that the F.B.I. began an investigation into a “potential criminal matter” several months ago that was not focused on Mr. Petraeus. In the course of their inquiry into whether a computer used by Mr. Petraeus had been compromised, agents discovered evidence of the relationship as well as other security concerns. About two weeks ago, F.B.I. agents met with Mr. Petraeus to discuss the investigation.

Administration and Congressional officials identified the woman as Paula Broadwell, the co-author of a biography of Mr. Petraeus. Her book, “All In: The Education of General David Petraeus,” was published this year. Ms. Broadwell could not be reached for comment.

Ms. Broadwell, a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, spent 15 years in the military, according to a biography that had appeared on her Web site. She spent extended periods of time with Mr. Petraeus in Afghanistan, interviewing him for her book, which grew out of a two-year research project for her doctoral dissertation and which she promoted on a high-profile tour that included an appearance on “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart.”

Married with two children, she has described Mr. Petraeus as her mentor.

Senior members of Congress were alerted to Mr. Petraeus’s impending resignation by intelligence officials about six hours before the C.I.A. announced it. One Congressional official who was briefed on the matter said that Mr. Petraeus had been encouraged “to get out in front of the issue” and resign, and that he agreed.

As for how the affair came to light, the Congressional official said that “it was portrayed to us that the F.B.I. was investigating something else and came upon him. My impression is that the F.B.I. stumbled across this.”

The Federal Bureau of Investigation did not inform the Senate and House Intelligence Committees about the inquiry until this week, according to Congressional officials, who noted that by law the panels — and especially their chairmen and ranking members — are supposed to be told about significant developments in the intelligence arena. The Senate committee plans to pursue the question of why it was not told, one official said.

The revelation of a secret inquiry into the head of the nation’s premier spy agency raised urgent questions about Mr. Petraeus’s 14-month tenure at the C.I.A. and the decision by Mr. Obama to elevate him to head the agency after leading the country’s war effort in Afghanistan. White House officials said they did not know about the affair until this week, when Mr. Petraeus informed them.

“After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair,” Mr. Petraeus said in his statement, expressing regret for his abrupt departure. “Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours. This afternoon, the president graciously accepted my resignation.”

Mr. Petraeus’s admission and resignation represent a remarkable fall from grace for one of the most prominent figures in America’s modern military and intelligence community, a commander who helped lead the nation’s wartime activities in the decade after the Sept. 11 attacks and was credited with turning around the failing war effort in Iraq.

Mr. Petraeus almost single-handedly forced a profound evolution in the country’s military thinking and doctrine with his philosophy of counterinsurgency, focused more on protecting the civilian population than on killing enemies. More than most of his flag officer peers, he understood how to navigate Washington politics and news media, helping him rise through the ranks and obtain resources he needed, although fellow Army leaders often resented what they saw as a grasping careerism.

 Reporting was contributed by Peter Baker, Helene Cooper, Michael S. Schmidt, Eric Schmitt and Scott Shane.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: November 9, 2012

An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that David H. Petraeus was expected to remain in President Obama’s cabinet. The C.I.A. director is not a cabinet member in the Obama administration.

Read More..

Congress Sees Rising Urgency on Fiscal Deal

Jonathan Ernst for The New York Times

Some House Republicans said leaders like Speaker John A. Boehner, center, needed breathing room on budget talks, aides said.

WASHINGTON — Senior lawmakers said Thursday that they were moving quickly to take advantage of the postelection political atmosphere to try to strike an agreement that would avert a fiscal crisis early next year when trillions of dollars in tax increases and automatic spending cuts begin to go into force.

Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, said he had begun circulating a draft plan to overhaul the tax code and entitlements, had met with 25 senators from both parties and “been on the phone nonstop since the election.”

Senator Olympia J. Snowe, the Maine Republican who will retire at the end of the year, made it clear that she intended to press for a deal to avert the so-called fiscal cliff and get serious on the deficit, lame duck or not.

“The message and signals we send in the coming days could bear serious consequences for this country,” she said. “It could trigger another downgrade. It could trigger a global financial crisis. This is a very consequential moment.”

Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Senate Democrat, extended an olive branch to Republicans, suggesting Thursday that he could accept a tax plan that leaves the top tax rate at 35 percent, provided that loophole closings would hit the rich, not the middle class. He previously had said that he would accept nothing short of a return to the top tax rate of Bill Clinton’s presidency, 39.6 percent.

“If you kept them at 35, it’s still much harder to do,” Mr. Schumer said, “but obviously there is push and pull, and there are going to be compromises.”

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office underscored the stakes in a report Thursday that framed Washington’s dilemma. It said that if automatic spending cuts go into force and all the Bush-era tax cuts expire, the nation would slip into recession next year and unemployment would rise to 9.1 percent, from October’s rate of 7.9 percent. But simply canceling those deficit-reduction measures would risk a financial crisis that would make matters worse, the report said.

The accelerated activity in Washington showed that members of Congress believed the election had amplified the imperative to strike a deal. Still, signs that the two sides are open to some compromise are no guarantee that they can reach an agreement after warring for two years. Many Republicans will continue to resist any proposal that can be read as increasing taxes, and many Democrats will balk at changes in entitlement programs and spending cuts.

Lawmakers also have a wary eye on the electoral landscape. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader and a crucial player in budget talks, is up for re-election in 2014 and may resist any deal that could foster opposition back home.

But members of Congress clearly see recent events creating an opening in the postelection session of Congress, when some retiring and defeated lawmakers could have a freer hand on voting for legislation, absent political consequences. Republicans were weakened by losing seats in both the House and the Senate, while Democrats are eager to move to issues like immigration, which animated Latino voters and helped deliver victory on Tuesday. “The conditions are there to act,” Mr. Corker said. “I think the environment is different now.”

Even conservative Republicans are signaling newfound flexibility. Aides said that on a conference call of House Republicans, a number of lawmakers spoke up to say they needed to give their leaders breathing room and avoid brinkmanship.

The budget office report suggested that allowing the Bush-era tax cuts to expire for households earning more than $250,000 a year — a position strenuously opposed by Congressional Republicans — would have relatively modest economic impacts, versus many of the other components of the fiscal cliff.

“House Republicans must end their intransigence on tax cuts for the very wealthy and sit down on a bipartisan basis to finish the work of this Congress,” said Representative Sander M. Levin of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee.

A separate C.B.O. report released Thursday threw cold water on Republican beliefs that a simplified tax code that lowered income and payroll taxes and closed loopholes to make up for lost revenue would substantially close the deficit by boosting economic growth. Such a plan would raise about $100 billion a year by 2020, far less than Democrats say is necessary, the report said.

The forces arrayed against a budget deal remain powerful, and the gap between the parties — at least in their public postures — is wide. Liberals, backed by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, say Social Security should not be part of any deal. Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont and a standard-bearer for the left, said Thursday that virtually all deficit reduction should come from tax increases on the rich, closing loopholes that have allowed profitable corporations to avoid paying any corporate income taxes and cutting military spending.

Mr. Corker said many Senate Republicans were willing to agree to a deal that raises more revenue through an overhaul of the tax code, and that additional revenue must be generated by taxation, not just economic growth. In a speech Thursday in his home state of South Carolina, Senator Lindsey Graham said that fellow Republicans should hold the line on tax rates, but that they had to accept that a reformed tax code would raise more revenues. Only then, he said, can they expect Democrats to negotiate changes to entitlement spending.

Speaker John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, has said he will agree only to a deal that lowers the top income tax rate from the current 35 percent, not from the top rate that is scheduled to kick in on Jan. 1, 39.6 percent. He said that additional revenue would be generated by economic growth spurred by a simpler tax code, not by higher taxes.

Spinning revenue from tax cuts like that, Mr. Schumer said, is a “Rumpelstiltskin fairy tale.”

Conservatives are not giving in.

“We will certainly face many battles in Congress in the coming months that will give us the opportunity to clearly articulate the failures of liberalism and the common sense of conservative alternatives,” Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, said Thursday on Facebook. “We must not shrink from the fight on Capitol Hill.”

Andrew Siddons contributed reporting.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: November 9, 2012

An earlier version of this article misspelled the given name of a contributing reporter. He is Andrew Siddons, not Andrews.

Read More..

Advertising: Help Remedies Tries to Cure Ailments in Small Doses

DISAPPOINTED voters, runners with blisters and headache sufferers alike are getting some unexpected relief from a pop-up pharmacy that opened this week in the nation’s capital.

The “help shop,” which offers low-dose drugs for everyday woes, is the idea of Help Remedies, a start-up company that sells minimalist white packets directed at single medical issues like nausea, headache or insomnia.

The company, the collaboration of two marketers, is creating quirky scenes including a high-heel wearing model walking on a treadmill to market its “Help, I have a blister” packet of bandages, or a performer sleeping in a store window to drum up interest for its “Help, I can’t sleep” caplets.

This week, shoppers and passers-by attracted by the napper, for example, could go inside the temporary pharmacy to investigate its 10 over-the-counter remedies for conditions like body aches and allergies.

The store’s team fanned out to polling stations on Tuesday to hand out its headache packets, and then on Wednesday to the nearby Republican National Committee to share nausea relief. Their marketing may be seen as fun and zany, but the company founders, Richard Fine and Nathan Frank, say they have a serious message.

“We want people to see that there are simple solutions,” said Mr. Fine, who said his straightforward approach was influenced by his parents, who are medical professors specializing in epidemiology.

“Most people shop by brand or product, and it’s difficult to know what you should be buying and taking,” he said. “It is a confusing space for people who are not experts.”

Mr. Fine and Mr. Frank, who met while working in branding and advertising, decided to try to streamline what they see as an antiquated and cluttered pharmaceutical market.

“We wanted to take what’s basic and works, and make it human,” Mr. Fine said. Their strategy of providing single ingredients in low dosages is aimed at basic medical conditions that do not require hospitalization.

After starting the company in 2008, they consulted pharmaceutical sources to zero in on the drugs and dosages to use. Their “Help, I have a headache” formulation, for example, contains 325 milligrams of acetaminophen per caplet.

“That is less than the amount in an extra strength caplet,” said Mr. Fine. “If you need more, you can take more. But this is what pharmacists recommend.”

By that summer, Help Remedies was distributing its packets in some high-end hotel chains and business conferences. In 2009, the two men quit their jobs and started the company Web site, helpineedhelp.com, which includes a link to drug facts for each product.

To carve a niche in the crowded pharmaceutical market, Mr. Frank, who handles the company’s creative efforts, said he focused on offbeat marketing, including tactile packaging and performance windows, and viral videos that mixed up the serious, the absurd and even the goofy.

For the packaging, Mr. Frank settled on a flat, white, textured box that opens like a tin. Taking a page from product designers like Apple, he settled on a simple font called century schoolbook, in various colors.

The graphic work was originally done by ChappsMalina and Little Fury, design firms in New York, and was since updated by another firm, Pearlfisher.

Help Remedies, a privately held company, did not disclose its advertising spending, which was $400 in 2010 and $12,500 last year, according to figures from Kantar Media, a WPP unit.

With a small budget, the company has focused on spinning out lighthearted solutions to situations — like countering boredom by focusing on a bouncing ball or hangovers by staring at a rag — on its Web site, videos, bus shelters and other advertising and in the store windows of Ricky’s, a New York beauty supply company.

Help Remedies set up “living windows” like “Help, I’ve never been kissed,” with models on hand to give hugs and kisses in Ricky’s storefronts. There were also serious problems like “Help, I want to save a life,” that provided registration kits from the bone marrow donor center DKMS.

To expand, the company is adapting the living window approach to its first pop-up pharmacy, in Washington, which was delayed by Hurricane Sandy and got under way as the election results were unfolding.

In addition to giving “Help, I have a headache” packets to anyone who asked, the store manager, Melinda Welch, and her staff distributed 2,000 packets — for blisters and for body aches — to participants in the annual High Heel Race.

The company’s products are found in major pharmacy outlets like Duane Reade and CVS, as well as Target and Walgreens. Last year, the company reached $4 million in sales and is set to expand after Washington to San Francisco; Seattle; Portland, Ore.; Austin, Tex.; Chicago; and Miami.

As part of its expansion, the Washington store plans to hold a “Help, I am Insecure” event on Saturday with a life coach to provide support and advice, and a manicurist for those insecure about their nails, Ms. Welch said.

Other events at later dates include “Help, I am Lonely,” with an online dating site consultation, and “Help, I’m in an Argument with my Spouse,” with a relationship judge to settle differences.

William G. Daddi, the president of Daddi Brand Communications, said Help Remedies’s distinct packaging was well suited to compete in the crowded health and beauty market.

But he warned that tying so many products to whimsical marketing carried risks because “there will be consumer confusion and the remedies will be seen as novelty products.”

“To build a true brand, the consumer needs to see that the product is effective,” Mr. Daddi said. “There needs to be a link to tangible outcomes so people see that the product works.”

Read More..

Advertising: Help Remedies Tries to Cure Ailments in Small Doses

DISAPPOINTED voters, runners with blisters and headache sufferers alike are getting some unexpected relief from a pop-up pharmacy that opened this week in the nation’s capital.

The “help shop,” which offers low-dose drugs for everyday woes, is the idea of Help Remedies, a start-up company that sells minimalist white packets directed at single medical issues like nausea, headache or insomnia.

The company, the collaboration of two marketers, is creating quirky scenes including a high-heel wearing model walking on a treadmill to market its “Help, I have a blister” packet of bandages, or a performer sleeping in a store window to drum up interest for its “Help, I can’t sleep” caplets.

This week, shoppers and passers-by attracted by the napper, for example, could go inside the temporary pharmacy to investigate its 10 over-the-counter remedies for conditions like body aches and allergies.

The store’s team fanned out to polling stations on Tuesday to hand out its headache packets, and then on Wednesday to the nearby Republican National Committee to share nausea relief. Their marketing may be seen as fun and zany, but the company founders, Richard Fine and Nathan Frank, say they have a serious message.

“We want people to see that there are simple solutions,” said Mr. Fine, who said his straightforward approach was influenced by his parents, who are medical professors specializing in epidemiology.

“Most people shop by brand or product, and it’s difficult to know what you should be buying and taking,” he said. “It is a confusing space for people who are not experts.”

Mr. Fine and Mr. Frank, who met while working in branding and advertising, decided to try to streamline what they see as an antiquated and cluttered pharmaceutical market.

“We wanted to take what’s basic and works, and make it human,” Mr. Fine said. Their strategy of providing single ingredients in low dosages is aimed at basic medical conditions that do not require hospitalization.

After starting the company in 2008, they consulted pharmaceutical sources to zero in on the drugs and dosages to use. Their “Help, I have a headache” formulation, for example, contains 325 milligrams of acetaminophen per caplet.

“That is less than the amount in an extra strength caplet,” said Mr. Fine. “If you need more, you can take more. But this is what pharmacists recommend.”

By that summer, Help Remedies was distributing its packets in some high-end hotel chains and business conferences. In 2009, the two men quit their jobs and started the company Web site, helpineedhelp.com, which includes a link to drug facts for each product.

To carve a niche in the crowded pharmaceutical market, Mr. Frank, who handles the company’s creative efforts, said he focused on offbeat marketing, including tactile packaging and performance windows, and viral videos that mixed up the serious, the absurd and even the goofy.

For the packaging, Mr. Frank settled on a flat, white, textured box that opens like a tin. Taking a page from product designers like Apple, he settled on a simple font called century schoolbook, in various colors.

The graphic work was originally done by ChappsMalina and Little Fury, design firms in New York, and was since updated by another firm, Pearlfisher.

Help Remedies, a privately held company, did not disclose its advertising spending, which was $400 in 2010 and $12,500 last year, according to figures from Kantar Media, a WPP unit.

With a small budget, the company has focused on spinning out lighthearted solutions to situations — like countering boredom by focusing on a bouncing ball or hangovers by staring at a rag — on its Web site, videos, bus shelters and other advertising and in the store windows of Ricky’s, a New York beauty supply company.

Help Remedies set up “living windows” like “Help, I’ve never been kissed,” with models on hand to give hugs and kisses in Ricky’s storefronts. There were also serious problems like “Help, I want to save a life,” that provided registration kits from the bone marrow donor center DKMS.

To expand, the company is adapting the living window approach to its first pop-up pharmacy, in Washington, which was delayed by Hurricane Sandy and got under way as the election results were unfolding.

In addition to giving “Help, I have a headache” packets to anyone who asked, the store manager, Melinda Welch, and her staff distributed 2,000 packets — for blisters and for body aches — to participants in the annual High Heel Race.

The company’s products are found in major pharmacy outlets like Duane Reade and CVS, as well as Target and Walgreens. Last year, the company reached $4 million in sales and is set to expand after Washington to San Francisco; Seattle; Portland, Ore.; Austin, Tex.; Chicago; and Miami.

As part of its expansion, the Washington store plans to hold a “Help, I am Insecure” event on Saturday with a life coach to provide support and advice, and a manicurist for those insecure about their nails, Ms. Welch said.

Other events at later dates include “Help, I am Lonely,” with an online dating site consultation, and “Help, I’m in an Argument with my Spouse,” with a relationship judge to settle differences.

William G. Daddi, the president of Daddi Brand Communications, said Help Remedies’s distinct packaging was well suited to compete in the crowded health and beauty market.

But he warned that tying so many products to whimsical marketing carried risks because “there will be consumer confusion and the remedies will be seen as novelty products.”

“To build a true brand, the consumer needs to see that the product is effective,” Mr. Daddi said. “There needs to be a link to tangible outcomes so people see that the product works.”

Read More..

Groupon Earnings Miss Expectations on Weakness in Europe

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) — Groupon reported financial results late Thursday that fell short of Wall Street’s already cautious expectations, as the daily-deal company failed to turn around its struggling European business.

Groupon also confirmed that it had laid off about 80 employees, mainly in sales, as part of an effort to automate the way it handles its deals.

The company’s shares fell as low as $3.21 in after-hours trading, down as much as 18 percent from their closing price of $3.92. Groupon was the darling of investors during last year’s consumer dot-com boom in initial public offerings, but now it has shed more than 80 percent of its value since making its public debut at $20 a share.

Wall Street has grown uneasy about Groupon’s prospects as daily-deals fever wanes among consumers and merchants, and as growth rates sputter. Adding to the difficulties, the S.E.C. has been looking into Groupon’s accounting and disclosures, an area of controversy during its initial public offering.

Groupon reported third-quarter revenue of $568.6 million, compared with $430.2 million a year earlier. Analysts had expected revenue of $590 million, according to Thomson Reuters.

The company posted a quarterly net loss of $3 million, or break-even on a per-share basis, compared with a net loss of $54.2 million, or 18 cents a share, in the third quarter of 2011.

Andrew Mason, chief executive of Groupon, said a “solid performance” in North America was offset by weakness in Europe. International revenue, including Europe, grew 3 percent to $277 million; North American revenue surged 80 percent to $292 million.

Europe has been a particular problem for Groupon, partly because the sovereign debt crisis there has hurt demand for higher-price deals. Groupon was also offering steeper discounts, disappointing some merchants.

Read More..

A Transfer of Power Begins in China

Military delegates arrived for the 18th Communist Party Congress at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Thursday. The weeklong meeting precedes the naming of China’s top leader, who will replace Hu Jintao. The meeting also introduces a new generation of party leaders.

Read More..

DealBook: On Wall Street, Time to Mend Fences With Obama

Del Frisco’s, an expensive steakhouse with floor-to-ceiling windows overlooking the Boston harbor, was a festive scene on Tuesday evening. The hedge fund billionaires Steven A. Cohen, Paul Singer and Daniel Loeb were among the titans of finance there dining among the gray velvet banquettes before heading several blocks away to what they hoped would be a victory party for their presidential candidate, Mitt Romney.

The next morning was a cold, sobering one for these executives.

Few industries have made such a one-sided bet as Wall Street did in opposing President Obama and supporting his Republican rival. The top five sources of contributions to Mr. Romney, a former top private equity executive, were big banks like Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Wealthy financiers — led by hedge fund investors — were the biggest group of givers to the main “super PAC” backing Mr. Romney, providing almost $33 million, and gave generously to outside groups in races around the country.

On Wednesday, Mr. Loeb, who had supported Mr. Obama in 2008, was sanguine. “You win some, you lose some,” he said in an interview. “We can all disagree. I have friends and we have spirited discussions. Sure, I am not getting invited to the White House anytime soon, but as citizens of the country we are all friendly.”

Wall Street, however, now has to come to terms with an administration it has vilified. What Washington does next will be critically important for the industry, as regulatory agencies work to put their final stamp on financial regulations and as tax increases and spending cuts are set to take effect in the new year unless a deal to avert them is reached. To not have a friend in the White House at this time is one thing, but to have an enemy is quite another.

“Wall Street is now going to have to figure out how to make this relationship work,” said Glenn Schorr, an analyst who follows the big banks for the investment bank Nomura. “It’s not impossible, but it’s not the starting point they had hoped for.”

Traditionally, the financial industry has tended to support Republican candidates, but, being pragmatic about power, has also donated to Democrats. That script got a rewrite in 2008, when many on Wall Street supported Mr. Obama as an intelligent leader for a country reeling from the financial crisis. Goldman employees were the leading source of campaign donations for Mr. Obama, who reaped far more contributions — roughly $16 million — from Wall Street than did his opponent, John McCain.

The love affair between Wall Street and Mr. Obama soured soon after he took office and championed an overhaul in financial regulations that became the Dodd-Frank Act.

Some financial executives complained that in meetings with the president, they found him disinterested and disengaged, while others on Wall Street never forgave Mr. Obama for calling them “fat cats.”

The disillusionment with the president spawned reams of critical commentary from Wall Street executives.

“So long as our leaders tell us that we must trust them to regulate and redistribute our way back to prosperity, we will not break out of this economic quagmire,” Mr. Loeb wrote in one letter to his investors.

The rhetoric at times became extreme, like the time Steven A. Schwarzman, co-founder of the private equity firm Blackstone Group, compared a tax proposal to “when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939.” (Mr. Schwarzman later apologized for the remark.)

Mr. Loeb was not alone in switching allegiances in the recent presidential race. Hedge fund executives like Leon Cooperman who had supported Mr. Obama in 2008 were big backers of Mr. Romney in 2012. And Wall Street chieftains like Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase and Lloyd C. Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, who have publicly been Democrats in the past, kept a low profile during this election. But their firms’ employees gave money to Mr. Romney in waves.

Starting over with the Obama White House will not be easy. One senior Wall Street lawyer who spoke on condition of anonymity said Wall Street “made a bad mistake” in pushing so hard for Mr. Romney. “They are going to pay a price,” he said. “It will soften over time, but there will be a price.”

Mr. Obama is not without supporters on Wall Street. Prominent executives like Hamilton James of Blackstone, and Robert Wolf, a former top banker at UBS, were in Chicago on Tuesday night, celebrating with the president.

“What we learned is the people on Wall Street have one vote just like everyone else,” Mr. Wolf said. Still, while the support Wall Street gave Mr. Romney is undeniable, Mr. Wolf said, “Mr. Obama wants a healthy private sector, and that includes Wall Street.

“If you look at fiscal reform, infrastructure, immigration and education, they are all bipartisan issues and are more aligned than some people make it seem.”

Reshma Saujani, a former hedge fund lawyer who was among Mr. Obama’s top bundlers this year and is planning to run for city office next year, agreed.

“Most people in the financial services sector are social liberals who support gay marriage and believe in a woman’s right to choose, so I think many of them will swing back to Democrats in the future,” she said.

---

This post has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: November 8, 2012

An earlier version of this article misidentified Reshma Saujani as a male.

Read More..

After Loss, Fight to Label Modified Food Continues

LOS ANGELES — Advocates for the labeling of genetically modified food vowed to carry their fight to other states and to the federal government after suffering a defeat in California on Tuesday.

A ballot measure that would have made California the first state in the nation to require such labeling was defeated, 53.1 percent to 46.9 percent. Support for the initiative, which polls said once was greater than 60 percent, crumbled over the last month under a barrage of negative advertisements paid for by food and biotechnology companies.

The backers of the measure, known as Proposition 37, said on Wednesday that they were encouraged it had garnered 4.3 million votes, even though they were outspent about five-to-one by opponents. They are now gathering signatures to place a similar measure on the ballot in Washington State next year.

Declaring that more than four million Californians are “on record believing we have a right to know what is in our food,” Dave Murphy, co-chairman of the Proposition 37 campaign and executive director of Food Democracy Now!, an advocacy group, said on Wednesday: “We fundamentally believe this is a dynamic moment for the food movement and we’re going forward.”

Still, there is no doubt the defeat in California has robbed the movement of some momentum. Until Tuesday’s vote, labeling proponents had been saying that a victory in California, not a defeat, would spur action in other states and at the federal level.

The defeat greatly reduces the chances that labels will be required, according to L. Val Giddings, a senior fellow at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a Washington organization supporting policies that favor innovation. “I see little potential that the defeat in California could result in any increase in pressure for labels. ”

Dr. Giddings, who is a supporter of biotech crops, said it would now be more difficult for labeling proponents to raise money. “What justification can they present to their funders to pour more money down this drain?” he said.

The election in California was closely watched because it had national implications. It could have led to a reduction in the use of genetically modified crops, which account for more than 80 percent of the corn, soybeans and sugar beets grown in the United States. That is because food companies, fearing that some consumers would shun products labeled genetically engineered, would instead reformulate their products to avoid such ingredients.

With so much at stake, food and biotechnology companies amassed $46 million to defeat the measure, according to MapLight, an organization that tracks campaign contributions. Monsanto, the largest supplier of genetically engineered seeds, contributed $8.1 million. Kraft Foods, PepsiCo and Coca-Cola each contributed at least $1.7 million.

The backers of Proposition 37 raised only $9.2 million, mainly from the organic and natural foods business.

The proponents argued that people have a right to know what is in their food. They said that genetically engineered crops have not been adequately tested and that dozens of countries require labeling.

The Food and Drug Administration does not require labeling of a food just because it is genetically modified, saying there is no material difference between such foods and their conventional counterparts.

The big food and biotechnology companies argued that numerous expert reviews have shown the crops to be safe. For the most part, they did not directly attack the notion of consumers’ right to know. Rather they said Proposition 37 was worded in a way that would lead to red tape, increases in food prices and numerous lawsuits against food companies and supermarkets.

Some backers of labeling will shift their focus to Washington, hoping to get the F.D.A. to change its mind and require labeling.

“We think that attention is now going to shift back to Washington, with a whole lot more to discuss and a whole lot more people interested,” said Gary Hirshberg, the chairman of Stonyfield, an organic yogurt company.

Mr. Hirshberg is also chairman of Just Label It, a group that submitted a petition with more than one million signatures to the F.D.A. asking it to require labeling. So far, however, the F.D.A. has shown little propensity to overturn its policy. And bills in Congress to require labeling have failed to gain much support.

Proposition 37 has no doubt raised awareness, however, which might prompt some consumers to seek foods that do not contain genetically engineered ingredients.

“Everything you buy in the grocery is a vote,” said Sara Hadden of Hermosa Beach, who organized street-corner rallies in favor of Proposition 37. “That’s the vote that really counts.”

One question is whether food firms, having narrowly escaped a disruption of their business on Tuesday, will make changes on their own — like voluntarily labeling or reducing their use of genetically modified crops.

If that is being considered, the food companies are not letting on. In a statement Wednesday, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents big food companies, called the defeat of Proposition 37 “a big win for California consumers, taxpayers, businesses and farmers.”

Read More..

After Loss, Fight to Label Modified Food Continues

LOS ANGELES — Advocates for the labeling of genetically modified food vowed to carry their fight to other states and to the federal government after suffering a defeat in California on Tuesday.

A ballot measure that would have made California the first state in the nation to require such labeling was defeated, 53.1 percent to 46.9 percent. Support for the initiative, which polls said once was greater than 60 percent, crumbled over the last month under a barrage of negative advertisements paid for by food and biotechnology companies.

The backers of the measure, known as Proposition 37, said on Wednesday that they were encouraged it had garnered 4.3 million votes, even though they were outspent about five-to-one by opponents. They are now gathering signatures to place a similar measure on the ballot in Washington State next year.

Declaring that more than four million Californians are “on record believing we have a right to know what is in our food,” Dave Murphy, co-chairman of the Proposition 37 campaign and executive director of Food Democracy Now!, an advocacy group, said on Wednesday: “We fundamentally believe this is a dynamic moment for the food movement and we’re going forward.”

Still, there is no doubt the defeat in California has robbed the movement of some momentum. Until Tuesday’s vote, labeling proponents had been saying that a victory in California, not a defeat, would spur action in other states and at the federal level.

The defeat greatly reduces the chances that labels will be required, according to L. Val Giddings, a senior fellow at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a Washington organization supporting policies that favor innovation. “I see little potential that the defeat in California could result in any increase in pressure for labels. ”

Dr. Giddings, who is a supporter of biotech crops, said it would now be more difficult for labeling proponents to raise money. “What justification can they present to their funders to pour more money down this drain?” he said.

The election in California was closely watched because it had national implications. It could have led to a reduction in the use of genetically modified crops, which account for more than 80 percent of the corn, soybeans and sugar beets grown in the United States. That is because food companies, fearing that some consumers would shun products labeled genetically engineered, would instead reformulate their products to avoid such ingredients.

With so much at stake, food and biotechnology companies amassed $46 million to defeat the measure, according to MapLight, an organization that tracks campaign contributions. Monsanto, the largest supplier of genetically engineered seeds, contributed $8.1 million. Kraft Foods, PepsiCo and Coca-Cola each contributed at least $1.7 million.

The backers of Proposition 37 raised only $9.2 million, mainly from the organic and natural foods business.

The proponents argued that people have a right to know what is in their food. They said that genetically engineered crops have not been adequately tested and that dozens of countries require labeling.

The Food and Drug Administration does not require labeling of a food just because it is genetically modified, saying there is no material difference between such foods and their conventional counterparts.

The big food and biotechnology companies argued that numerous expert reviews have shown the crops to be safe. For the most part, they did not directly attack the notion of consumers’ right to know. Rather they said Proposition 37 was worded in a way that would lead to red tape, increases in food prices and numerous lawsuits against food companies and supermarkets.

Some backers of labeling will shift their focus to Washington, hoping to get the F.D.A. to change its mind and require labeling.

“We think that attention is now going to shift back to Washington, with a whole lot more to discuss and a whole lot more people interested,” said Gary Hirshberg, the chairman of Stonyfield, an organic yogurt company.

Mr. Hirshberg is also chairman of Just Label It, a group that submitted a petition with more than one million signatures to the F.D.A. asking it to require labeling. So far, however, the F.D.A. has shown little propensity to overturn its policy. And bills in Congress to require labeling have failed to gain much support.

Proposition 37 has no doubt raised awareness, however, which might prompt some consumers to seek foods that do not contain genetically engineered ingredients.

“Everything you buy in the grocery is a vote,” said Sara Hadden of Hermosa Beach, who organized street-corner rallies in favor of Proposition 37. “That’s the vote that really counts.”

One question is whether food firms, having narrowly escaped a disruption of their business on Tuesday, will make changes on their own — like voluntarily labeling or reducing their use of genetically modified crops.

If that is being considered, the food companies are not letting on. In a statement Wednesday, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents big food companies, called the defeat of Proposition 37 “a big win for California consumers, taxpayers, businesses and farmers.”

Read More..