News Diery

The New Old Age Blog: More Time to Enroll in Medicare If You Live in Storm Areas

Labels: Lifestyle

Medicare beneficiaries battered by Hurricane Sandy have one fewer problem to worry about: Federal officials have extended the Dec. 7 deadline to enroll in a private medical or drug plan for next year for those still coping with storm damage.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services “understands that many Medicare beneficiaries have been affected by this disaster and wants to ensure that all beneficiaries are able to compare their options and make enrollment choices for 2013,” Arrah Tabe-Bedward, acting director for the Medicare Enrollment and Appeals Group, wrote in a Nov. 7 letter to health insurance companies and state health insurance assistance programs.

Beneficiaries hit by the storm can still enroll after the Dec. 7 midnight deadline if they call Medicare’s 24-hour information line: 1-800-MEDICARE (1-800-633-4227). Representatives will be able to review available plans and complete the enrollment process over the phone.

“We are committed to giving people with Medicare the information and the time they need to make important decisions about their coverage,” a Medicare spokeswoman, Isabella Leung, said in an e-mail message. Medicare officials have not set a new deadline but have encouraged beneficiaries to make their decisions soon if possible.

People currently in a plan will be automatically re-enrolled for next year in the same plan.

The extra time also applies to any beneficiaries who normally get help from family members or others to sort through dozens of plans, but who have been unable to do so this year because they live in areas affected by the storm. Neither beneficiaries nor those who provide them assistance will be required to prove that they experienced storm damage.

“This is a really important recognition by CMS to accommodate Medicare enrollees affected by Hurricane Sandy,” said Leslie Fried, director for policy and programs at the National Council on Aging, an advocacy group in Washington.

After the hurricane, the Obama administration declared Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island “major disaster areas,” according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In addition, FEMA issued emergency declarations for parts of Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia.

More than four million older people in those states are enrolled in drugs-only plans, and more than 2.8 million have Medicare Advantage policies, which includes medical and drug coverage.

Susan Jaffe is a writer for Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan health policy research and communication organization not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The New Old Age Blog: More Time to Enroll in Medicare If You Live in Storm Areas

Labels: Health

People currently in a plan will be automatically re-enrolled for next year in the same plan.

More than four million older people in those states are enrolled in drugs-only plans, and more than 2.8 million have Medicare Advantage policies, which includes medical and drug coverage.

A Transfer of Power Begins in China

Labels: World

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.

Bits Blog: The Obama Campaign's Technology Is a Force Multiplier

Labels: Technology

Technology doesn’t win political campaigns, but it certainly is a weapon — a force multiplier, in military terms.

Both sides in the presidential contest mined click-stream data as never before to target messages to potential voters. But a real edge for the Obama campaign was in its use of online and mobile technology to support its much-praised ground game, finding potential supporters and urging them to vote, either in person or by phone, according to two senior members of the Obama technology team, Michael Slaby, chief integration and innovation officer for the Obama campaign, and Harper Reed, chief technology officer for the Obama campaign.

A program called “Dashboard,” for example, allowed volunteers to join a local field team and get assignments remotely. The Web application — viewable on smartphones or tablets — showed the location of field workers, neighborhoods to be canvassed, and blocks where help was needed. “It allowed people to join a neighborhood team without ever going to a central office,” said Mr. Slaby.

Another ground-game program was a tool for telephone canvassing from people’s homes instead of having to travel to a campaign office and work from a telephone bank. The call tool was a Web program that let people sign up to make calls and receive a list of phone numbers, names and a script to use, noted Mr. Reed.

Often, the profiles of volunteer callers and the lists they received were matched. So the callers were people with similar life experiences to those being called, and thus more likely to be persuasive. Here is a YouTube video of a 91-year-old World War II veteran, who joined the Obama phone corps.

In 2008, there were some remote callers in the Obama campaign. But this year, there were ten times as many, Mr. Slaby said.

The sheer scale of the online outreach and data collection dwarfed the effort four years ago. For example, the Barack Obama Facebook site had 33 million “likes,” compared with 2 million for the previous campaign. A Facebook like, Mr. Slaby noted, is the “just the first rung on a ladder of engagement” but it is a starting point.

Another truly important change was in the technology itself. “Cloud computing barely existed in 2008,” Mr. Slaby said.

This time, the Obama campaign’s data center was mainly Amazon Web Services, the leading supplier of cloud services. The campaign’s engineers built about 200 different programs that ran on the Amazon service including Dashboard, the remote calling tool, the campaign Web site, donation processing and data analytics applications.

Using mainly open-source software and the Amazon service, the Obama campaign could inexpensively write and tailor its own programs instead of using off-the-shelf commercial software.

“It let us attack and engineer our own approach to problems, and build solutions for an environment that moves so rapidly you can’t plan,” Mr. Slaby said. “It made a huge difference this time.”

Living With Cancer: It’s About Time

Labels: Lifestyle

It’s time to renew my driver’s license! I never thought I would live to see the day. Back in 2008, when pressed to disclose my life expectancy, my oncologist estimated three to five years. Figuring that I was an average patient, I split the difference and believed I had four years left. Yet here I am, about to celebrate my fourth “cancerversary” with a trip to the dreary and backlogged bureau of motor vehicles, elated by the conviction that even if I expire within the next year or so, my license won’t.

This sort of wacky calculation reflects the oddity of cancer temporality. Every facet of cancer and its treatments transforms time, from its smallest to its larger increments. Of course, waiting takes the most time in the smallest units. Its ticktock can be interminable, especially when you are anxiously waiting for test results or fasting for a dreaded operation or when you are going through preparations for a procedure requiring that you drink vials of what looks like Kool-Aid every half-hour for two hours. Any period spent in the hospital requires killing time. Time, in fact, sometimes seems to stop, to stand still. The afternoon after an operation, as one fitfully wakes and sleeps, sleeps and wakes, can feel like an eternity. I surface with effort, muttering, “It can’t still be Thursday,” only to be told, “Yes, it’s still Thursday.”

While you’re waiting, fear or pain elongates minutes and hours and days. Chemotherapy divides into intervals the weeks and months that begin with its slow drip-drip. Just when I determine that I have no time to waste and must relish the change of the seasons, the timetable of chemo-time nudges them aside.

Each of my cycles of chemotherapy included six sessions, given every three weeks. I might not have known whether it was spring or fall, but I always knew that there were, say, two down and four to go. And then I began counting not the sessions but the cycles, though I could not remember the start-and-finish of all three cycles, for the past blurred. I had to draft a sort of chemo-history. Now that I am in a clinical trial, the nurse in charge provides me with a monthly schedule on which all the blood draws, pill dispensations and scans are recorded so I can track the present and the near future. Its rhythms trump those of the Gregorian and lunar calendars.

The zones of remissions and recurrences — registered for many people in years, for me, unfortunately, in months — can also be hard to gauge. Do I date remission at the last chemotherapy session, recurrence at the start of the next chemotherapy cycle? Or do I go by blood tests or scans? I am just as uncertain about the exact date of my cancerversary. Is it the day on which I heard the diagnosis, or the day of the initial operation? I wonder, should either of these time bombs be celebrated?

The limits of time stir me to enumerate constantly. I am always counting on my fingers: remissions and recurrences, the months used up, the months left, the relatives and friends I cherish. I count my steps down to the mailbox, my steps dragging the garbage can back to the garage, the number of my husband’s underpants in the laundry, the hours until the next pill, the number of days in which I must change or flush surgical implants, the weeks until I see my oncologist, the people on whom I count.

If my oncologist is right, and all of her other predictions have been spot on, I am approaching the last year of my life: final time. In the immortal words of Dr. Seuss, “How did it get so late so soon?” Without much of a future, surely time will again change. A lot can happen in a year — think of the helpless infant becoming a walking, talking toddler in 9 or 10 months. Time moves more slowly for small children, since a year of a 2-year-old’s life is 50 percent of that life. A terminal diagnosis may also slow down time. The next year might be 100 percent of what’s left of my existence.

Sometimes the time left seems too long; too many catastrophes could injure those I love. Sometimes it seems too short; there are so many suspenseful stories unfolding around me, and I want to see how they will turn out. Those for whom time’s chariot is indeed winged often attest to a heightened appreciation of their fast-fading prospects. And then there is always the dream of borrowed time, that numinous period beyond the predicted end, like a stay of execution, which must be fraught with its own blessings and curses.

But during apocalyptic times, when natural forces obliterate the precious places of my origins, even the dream of borrowed time can sink under the rising waters, as I brood on the widespread suffering and struggling of others.

In the meantime, I discover that it is now possible to bypass the motor vehicle bureau by renewing a driver’s license online. Voilà, it will appear in the mail — sporting the photograph on the license issued six years ago, before my diagnosis. On the license, at least, the passage has been reversed. It’s about time.

Susan Gubar is a distinguished emerita professor of English at Indiana University and the author of “Memoir of a Debulked Woman,” which explores her experience with ovarian cancer.

Living With Cancer: It’s About Time

Labels: Health

Susan Gubar is a distinguished emerita professor of English at Indiana University and the author of “Memoir of a Debulked Woman,” which explores her experience with ovarian cancer.

Preparing to Step Aside in China, Hu Jintao Warns of Challenges

Labels: World

Changing of the Guard in China:
The New York Times’s Beijing correspondents discuss the challenges ahead for China as the country begins its once-in-a-decade leadership transition.

BEIJING — Capping 10 careful years at the helm of the Communist Party, China’s top leader, Hu Jintao, on Thursday boasted of successes during his tenure while issuing a blunt warning against unrest and political reform.

Mr. Hu, 69, is to step down as the party’s general secretary next week, handing over power to his designated successor, Xi Jinping. His speech at the opening here in Beijing of the Communist Party’s 18th Congress was likely to be his last major address — a chance to write his own eulogy while also setting the course for Mr. Xi.

“He’s worried about how history will view him,” said Qian Gang, who works with the China Media Project of Hong Kong University. “On the whole, he is against reform.”

Formally, Mr. Hu nodded to almost every manner of reform: economic, social, political and environmental. But, in the fashion of his predecessors, this was balanced with warnings of the need to guard against a rise in unrest. It was an unusual admission for a man whose signature slogan is creating for China a “harmonious society.”

“Social contradictions have clearly increased,” said the formal 64-page document issued at the congress. (Mr. Hu’s speech, even at 100 minutes, was only a summary.)

“There are many problems concerning the public’s immediate interests in education, employment, social security, health care, housing, the environment, food and drug safety, workplace safety, public security and law enforcement.”

The solution, Mr. Hu said, was “reform and opening up,” a policy initiated by the man who chose him for the job nearly two decades ago, the paramount leader Deng Xiaoping.

Mr. Hu also lauded his own contribution to Communist Party ideology: “Scientific Development.” Most of his predecessors have had their own ideologies enshrined as guiding state doctrines. His repetition of the phrase — which means that the party should be pragmatic and follow policies that are demonstrably effective — implied that he, too, would be so honored.

But his caveats to reform were many.

According to Mr. Qian, a leading expert on textual analysis of Chinese leaders’ speeches, Mr. Hu’s speech hit on almost every anti-reform phrase used by Chinese Communist leaders.

He referred to Communist China’s founder three times with the phrase “Mao Zedong Thought,” and said the party must “resolutely not follow Western political systems,” something not mentioned at the last party congress five years ago.

“They don’t say these terms lightly,” Mr. Qian said. “When they mention it, it matters.”

Mr. Hu also coined a new term, pledging that the party will not to follow the “wicked way” of changing the party’s course.

Mr. Hu’s speech is thought to have been drawn up in cooperation with his successor, Mr. Xi. While Mr. Xi is widely thought to be consulting with liberal members of China’s intelligentsia, he either did not oppose Mr. Hu’s direction or was not able to change it.

That is important, observers say, because Mr. Xi will not exercise unrestrained power when he takes over. Besides the other half-dozen members on the Standing Committee of the party’s Politburo, he will also have to listen to the advice of Mr. Hu, Mr. Hu’s own predecessor, Jiang Zemin, and an estimated 20 other “senior leaders.” As if to emphasize their role, these men were seated on the dais next to Mr. Hu. Many of them are in their 70s and 80s and have exercised power for decades.

“Xi Jinping certainly won’t be a Gorbachev,” said Yao Jianfu, a former official and researcher who closely follows Chinese politics and advocates democratic change. “Every aspect of reform has an important precondition — that the Communist Party remains in charge.”

Even though Mr. Hu’s speech was broadcast live on national television and on screens in Beijing subway cars, gauging popular opinion was difficult.

Microbloggers, who are mostly urban and fairly well educated, at times cast scorn on the rhetoric. One blogger listed the Marxist terminology that Mr. Hu used and wrote simply “madness.” Others used laughing emoticons, while some delved closely into the speech for clues to new policies — some noted his fleeting mention of China’s unpopular single-child policy.

Advertising: Companies Try a Personal Touch Seen by Thousands

Labels: Technology

IT was while shopping recently at a farmer’s market in Raleigh, N.C., that Andrea Chiz Plyler realized she was being followed by an enormous mushroom.

The mushroom was, in fact, Mel, the mascot from the Mellow Mushroom Pizza Bakers chain, but Ms. Plyler, who was with her mother-in-law, did not recognize him as such. When she turned around to look at Mel, he stood motionless, and it unsettled her.

“I am deathly terrified of people in mascot-type uniforms, and he was really creepy because he has almost like this blank stare like he was staring right through you,” Ms. Plyler said in a telephone interview.

It turns out that Ms. Plyler, 25, a law student at the North Carolina Central University School of Law, had recently begun to follow Mellow Mushroom on Twitter. And Mellow Mushroom, which like many businesses reciprocally follows consumers on Twitter, had decided as a promotional stunt to follow some of those consumers in the literal sense — and to bring a film crew.

Six hidden cameras, in places like a portable toilet, a van and inside the mushroom costume, documented Ms. Plyler’s reaction as she was followed around the market.

On Oct. 22, Mellow Mushroom posted the video featuring Ms. Plyler on YouTube. The ominous score of a horror movie plays as Mel lurks behind her. When he gets to within arm’s reach, she turns around, and Mel slowly raises an arm and slowly extends and lowers each of his fingers in succession in an oddly menacing wave.

The video cuts to Ms. Plyler happily sharing a slice of pizza with Mel at a table set up in a parking lot. It closes with the text, “Follow us and we’ll follow you,” and directs viewers to FollowMellow.com, a tab on the company’s Facebook page that features several more videos of other Twitter users being stalked by Mel and a second mushroom mascot, Dude.

The videos are by Fitzgerald & Company in Atlanta, part of McCann Worldgroup, which is owned by the Interpublic Group of Companies. Production is by Arts and Sciences and direction is by Adam Brodie and Dave Derewlany.

In early October, the crew secretly filmed about 20 Twitter users being followed by the mascots, and Mellow Mushroom continues to add new videos to YouTube from the outings. The agency used social networks, especially Facebook, to contact relatives and friends to act as confederates — in Ms. Plyler’s case, her mother-in-law — to help coordinate the stunt.

“We have such an irreverent brand that we thought it would be cool and interesting to really follow consumers not just on Twitter but in a real-world way,” said Annica Kreider, vice president of brand development at Mellow Mushroom, which was founded in 1974 in Atlanta and has about 130 restaurants across the country. “Part of why we do things like this is to say that we are a different brand and we aren’t going to give you the same old sales propaganda.”

Brands typically use social networks as extensions of their customer service departments, monitoring Twitter and Facebook for complaints, and mollifying consumers before they get so fed up that they do something like post negative online reviews or rant in a YouTube video.

But brands also increasingly are using social networks in more idiosyncratic ways to win over fans through acts of whimsy.

On Oct. 8, for example, Richard Neill, a Facebook user, jokingly posted on the wall for Bodyform, a feminine care brand sold by SCA Personal Care in Britain. Euphemistic Bodyform commercials Mr. Neill saw as a child, he wrote, gave him warped expectations.

“As a child I watched your advertisements with interest as to how at this wonderful time of the month that the female gets to enjoy so many things,” wrote Mr. Neill, saying that he had been jealous he could not also partake in a monthly flurry of activity that included bicycling, roller coaster riding, dancing and parachuting.

But Mr. Neill continued that, far from such activities and from innocuous product demos using blue fluid, when he finally had a girlfriend and that “time of the month” arrived, she changed from “loving” and “gentle” to “the little girl from the exorcist with added venom and extra 360 degree head spin.”

Bodyform has fewer than 7,500 followers on Facebook, and Mr. Neill has only about 415 friends on the social network, but the post was shared so often that more than 100,000 users have read it and clicked the “like” icon.

On Oct. 16, eight days after Mr. Neill’s post, Bodyform posted a video on YouTube and Facebook that responded to Mr. Neill directly.

In the video, an actress who identifies herself as the Bodyform chief executive sits at a desk and pours herself a glass of blue liquid from a pitcher.

“We lied to you Richard, and I want to say ‘Sorry,’ ” she says. “What you’ve seen in our advertising so far isn’t a factual representation of events.”

After admitting that during periods some women get cramps, mood swings and “blood coursing from our uteri,” she takes a sip of the blue fluid. A sound comes from her chair, and she adds, “Ooh, sorry Richard, you did know that we do that too, didn’t you?”

The video has garnered more than 3.2 million views on YouTube. It is by Carat, London, part of Aegis Group, with production by Rubber Republic, also in London.

“I don’t think we could have done that with above-the-line advertising,” said Anne McCreary, digital strategy director at Carat, referring to the provocative humor in the video. “But for brands to be relevant to consumers, they have to develop a new way of interacting with consumers that is much more about responding to them.”

After Loss, Fight to Label Modified Food Continues

Labels: Lifestyle

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.”

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

Labels: Business

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 uninterested 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.

A version of this article appeared in print on 11/08/2012, on page B1 of the NewYork edition with the headline: On Wall Street, Time to Mend Fences With Obama.

News Diery

Category

Archive

The New Old Age Blog: More Time to Enroll in Medicare If You Live in Storm Areas

The New Old Age Blog: More Time to Enroll in Medicare If You Live in Storm Areas

A Transfer of Power Begins in China

Bits Blog: The Obama Campaign's Technology Is a Force Multiplier

Living With Cancer: It’s About Time

Living With Cancer: It’s About Time

Preparing to Step Aside in China, Hu Jintao Warns of Challenges

Advertising: Companies Try a Personal Touch Seen by Thousands

After Loss, Fight to Label Modified Food Continues

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

A version of this article appeared in print on 11/08/2012, on page B1 of the NewYork edition with the headline: On Wall Street, Time to Mend Fences With Obama.

Subscribe Me