That’s an interesting question.
From CBS News Political Hot Sheet -
“With Wall Street reporting record profits while middle class Americans continue to struggle in a deep recession, the announcement that William Daley, who has close ties to the Big Banks and Big Business, will now lead the White House staff is troubling and sends the wrong message to the American people,” said Justin Ruben, Executive Director of MoveOn.org.
What has liberals so upset? It’s hard to know where to start. There’s the years at JPMorgan Chase and on the board of mortgage giant Fannie Mae; the fact that Daley reportedly opposed the establishment of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that was a major component of financial regulatory reform; Daley’s December 2009 argument that Democrats should “steer a more moderate course on the key issues of the day, from health care to the economy to the environment to Afghanistan”; his reported work with the Chamber of Commerce to “loosen the post-Enron regulations on the accounting and auditing professions”; his work in the Clinton administration to get the North American Free Trade Agreement through Congress; and, more generally, the fact that he’s seen as a strong advocate to the Obama administration for the interests of big business.
Before the selection, Politico asked banking officials and corporate lobbyists who they wanted in the chief of staff job, and the “unequivocal” response was Daley. The subsequent story included just the sort of quote to make a liberal (as well, potentially, as a Tea Partier) cringe: “Immediately things would get better” if Daley got the job, one executive said. “You can pick up the phone and call him in a way you can’t really with anyone there now.”
Now, you know who can call Mr. Daley and “call him in a way you can’t really with anyone there now.”