Today's Warren appointment was roundly praised by consumer advocates. Simon Johnson calls it "the right appointment at the right time:"

The case for appointing Elizabeth Warren to set up the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was, at the end of the day, overwhelming. She had the original idea, she helped build political support, and her own credentials have been only strengthened by her work as head of the Congressional Oversight Panel for TARP. On Friday, the president will reportedly appoint Professor Warren as an assistant to the president and special adviser to the Treasury Secretary, with the task of setting up and initially running the CFPB.

Some of Ms. Warren’s supporters think this move is something of a half-measure – they would have preferred a conventional nomination, with all the fanfare of a classic confirmation battle in the Senate. There is something to be said for that, but the interim appointment route is by far the best way forward for three reasons.

First, this form of appointment puts Elizabeth Warren to work right away – on the issues of consumer protection that are first order both for ordinary families and for the macroeconomy. You really cannot build a sustainable economic recovery on the back of exploitative or abusive behavior by the financial sector. These issues are urgent and need resolution as soon as possible.

Second, the president finally has an adviser who understands the financial sector and who has healthy skepticism about its intentions and actions. As we documented at length in 13 Bankers, too many top policy people – both in this administration and all its recent predecessors – have been overly inclined to accommodate the interests of finance, particularly the big banks. In this regard, putting Ms. Warren directly into the White House with the highest possible level of access is exactly the right thing to do – much better, for example, than making her purely a Treasury appointment.

Third, this step does not avoid a debate in the Senate – it merely postpones it to a more advantageous moment. Presuming that Ms. Warren is nominated as for a five year term as head of the CFPB, she would go before the Senate Banking Committee with a real track record of achievement as interim head. The debate would not be about what the agency could do, but rather what it has already done – and what it is set up to do next. These are exactly the right terms on which to bring out into the open all those who think that the financial sector only ever behaves well – or that enforcing sensible rules on lenders would somehow bring the economy to its knees.

Mike Lux calls it a "a home run for our side:"

I am more than a little biased, because Elizabeth has become a good friend over the past few years, and because I have rarely seen the kinds of guts and tough bargaining strategy that I watched her show during the financial reform fight and the TARP oversight work. She publicly and repeatedly faced down Tim Geithner on a series of major issues around TARP and the overall handling of the financial crisis. She privately went nose to nose with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and Treasury during negotiations over the financial reform bill. She had to time and again back Dodd down when he was getting ready to make bad compromises on the consumer agency. (Why do you think Dodd has fought so hard to keep Warren from being nominated?) She is the real deal, a fighter for middle class and poor families through and through.

And, Robert Kuttner calls it "a huge win:"

The early Administration leaks about Elizabeth Warren serving as an "interim" appointee to set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau were equivocal. In one version of the story, she would be a counselor to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. In others, this appointment would be an alternative to her even being considered for the job on a permanent basis -- a wink and a nod to the financial industry.

But that scenario turned out to be wrong, and underestimated Warren's own tenacity. It is now clear that the indefatigable Warren will be both a senior presidential adviser with direct access to Obama when she needs it, as well as a Treasury employee. In an administration dominated by Rubinistas, Warren will literally be the first financial progressive with both a personal connection to the president as well as an independent power base.

This strategy is a win-win, on several grounds. It gives Warren full authority to set up the agency, without having to run the gantlet of confirmation hearings and a likely Republican filibuster.

This way, Warren will be able to get the agency quickly up and running in a manner that serves both consumers and progressive politics. Early directives to bring greater simplicity and transparency to credit documents will be extremely popular. Politically, the carping by the banking industry and its Republican allies will remind the public which side the GOP is on.

We did it. We were united. We were relentless. And, we won - big time.

We did it:

A senior administration official tells CNN that on Friday, around midday, President Obama will officially announce his appointment of Elizabeth Warren as Assistant to the President and Special advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

This is a win for watchdogs:

It’s not hard to understand, and embrace, the excitement over her appointment. Here are six reasons Warren’s appointment is good for consumers:

She’s a strong middle-class advocate. In an interview with U.S. News in February 2009, Warren emphasized the importance of supporting middle-class families: "The financial system can't be stabilized without stabilizing families. If families continue to choke on debt they cannot pay, the whole system will continue to falter. ... The outcome of this recession will either be a significantly strengthened middle class—which has less debt and a stronger safety net, both on its own and through new government regulation—or the middle class we once knew will disappear. [In that case,] America will move to a two-class economy—a substantial upper class that's financially secure and then a very large underclass that lives paycheck to paycheck."

She’s a celebrity. How many bureaucrats have rap videos written for them? The fact that the government’s top consumer advocate is so well-known brings much-needed attention to consumer causes and concerns. If a no-name expert filled her position, the new bureau wouldn’t get nearly so much attention.

She believes in the value of good government policies. Government policy, says Warren, is what will determine the future of America’s middle-class. Now, she’s in a position to help shape those policies. In the 2009 interview, she said helping people keep their homes and jobs should be the government’s priority: “Stopping the tide of foreclosures would help a great deal. Both because it would keep some families out of complete economic collapse, and it would let others stabilize the value of their biggest asset, their homes. It would also stop the continuing deterioration of some communities, and it would be good for jobs,” she said.

She has widespread support in the consumer world. Here’s how Carmen Wong Ulrich, television personality and author of the forthcoming The Real Cost of Living puts it: “[Warren] is our Wonder Woman. Her appointment means we--American consumers, Main Street--have a hero in Washington. She'll be our voice and champion and fill a gaping vacancy in terms of keeping our financial lives under a watchful eye, while many others have been either blind or sleeping."

Warren’s smart and can put economic concepts in basic English. Here’s how she explained what caused the current recession to U.S. News: “This recession started years ago with declining wages and rising core expenses. Families tried to adjust by working more jobs and longer hours, depleting their savings, and taking on debt. Now, the American family is crushed by debt, and job problems will make the problem worse. ... The financial system can't be stabilized without stabilizing families. If families continue to choke on debt they cannot pay, the whole system will continue to falter.”

She’s real. A recent Washington Post profile reports that Warren grew up in a “cash-strapped” family in Oklahoma, got married as a teenager, and became a mother shortly afterwards. She slowly worked her way up in academia to her current spot as law professor at Harvard.

This is a win for activists as well. The lesson is simple: when we're united and we make our voices heard loudly and consistently, we win.

Reuters describes Elizabeth Warren as Wall Street's worst nightmare:

Elizabeth Warren is folksy and plain-spoken and favors cardigans over Washington power suits. Many on Wall Street view her as their worst nightmare but she is a hero to liberal activists and consumer groups...

On Wall Street, "there is very strong dislike of her and what she might do," said Bert Ely, a banking consultant in Alexandria, Virginia.

The banksters are against Elizabeth Warren because they know she'll stand up to their excesses and hold them accountable. Even the conservative, Rupert Murdoch-owned New York Post concedes that Warren is the one for the job:

So far, Warren's detractors are finding it difficult to identify anyone more viable than the 61-year-old scholar. She is chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel -- a five-member Washington agency charged with reviewing how effectively the US Treasury and other government agencies allocated the taxpayer-funded rescue packages.

Where do you stand? Do you stand with the banksters? Or, do you want a powerful watchdog looking out for our interests at the CFPA?

Another powerful voice for Elizabeth Warren. This time, it's noted Law Professor Norm Silber of Hofstra and Yale Law Schools. Professor Silber also holds a Ph.D in history and is a specialist in the history of the consumer movement. Professor Silber:

The tone reflected by the news stories proceeded much like this:

Landmark legislation can finally protect the public from hidden dangers which might happen to any of us any day. For the first time we have the real prospect that products will be safer and that we will know more about the dangers in store. But this can happen only if the new Agency has an independent and assertive start under an experienced leader with loyalties that run toward the public interest, and not toward special interests who have from the start tried to kill the new authority. The new director will, for better or worse, personify the strength of this new effort. There can hardly be any doubt about who the head of the new agency should be. The question is who will it actually be?

This might sound like today’s debate over the choice of the new director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection—but it is a more accurate reflection of the drama that played out a century ago, in 1906, when the first director of what became the Food and Drug Administration was selected by President Teddy Roosevelt.

The obvious best choice was the famous chemist Dr. Harvey W. Wiley. Beginning in 1882, Dr. Wiley opened up the fight for a Pure Food and Drug Law. Wiley and his “poison squad” of employee-volunteers at the Bureau of Chemistry, in the Agriculture Department, served as “human guinea pigs,” by eating canned soups and preserved meats, publicizing their frequently dangerous ingredients in news stories and scientific journals. By 1906 public respect for Wiley’s qualifications and for his independence from the prepared food manufacturers distinguished him. Congress turned to this chemist in the Agriculture Department to become the first official responsible for enforcing the Pure Food and Drug Law.

Although Dr. Wiley lost a number of battles—and over the years was charged by opponents with biases of his own—he built a skilled and independent, empirically oriented staff. During the crucial initial years, in particular, he built a strong foundation for a great agency that sustained it for the twentieth century. Only in more recent years, as drug companies have exercised greater influence over appointments and the agency’s budget, have questions about the FDA’s independence begun to stick.

Last month, Congress created an independent regulatory body within the Federal Reserve System, a body designed to address consumer financial products. The near-collapse of the banking system, and the economic and human devastation resulting from a dysfunctional lending market,precipitated this reform.

Echoes of the Wiley drama resound in this modern controversy. The question today is whether Professor Elizabeth Warren of the Harvard Law School and Chair of the TARP Congressional Oversight Panel should be appointed (by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate) as the first Director of the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

In Wiley’s tradition, Professor Warren conducted empirical research and policy-oriented scholarship to demonstrate the consequences of defective products and deficient regulation. She appeared in documentary films about personal tragedies hastened by under-regulated credit card agreements, and conceived of the new consumer agency to address the matter. She criticized the insufficient use of TARP funds to help homeowners directly. She encouraged legislators to retain the new Bureau as part of the financial reform package.

A comparison between these two reform efforts, a century apart, leads us to consider what skills and qualities a first director should have; and what role those who stand to be regulated should play in the process of choosing their own regulator.

Would the launch of the new Bureau be enhanced by choosing one who helped define its mission and regulatory objectives? Would public confidence be diminished irretrievably if the director is chosen by the affected industry or its allies? Has devotion to the creation of this Bureau compromised Warren because of doubt cast on her detachment and objectivity?

The choice of Wiley greatly enhanced the profile of the FDA as it began its life. Blocking Wiley’s appointment—even if it had led to another, excellent and independent voice—would have demonstrated the persistent muscle of the affected industries, and would have suggested that enforcement and rulemaking authority also would be subject to interference. How much less effective a century of food and drug regulation probably would have been if the food industry played a major role, or exercised a veto, in selecting the first head.

Wiley was perceived as holding a special “bias”. He appeared to care more for the safety of the food supply than for extending product shelf-life of food or the profits of industry. When the manufacturers of such preservatives as borax or additives such as benzoate of soda cried out about economic realities, Wiley typically countered by discussing the danger to one’s kidneys or liver. His response was not perceived as being biased—it just seemed he had a more balanced set of priorities. Today when the economic importance of such innovations as credit card teaser rates have been pled, Professor Warren has countered by addressing the impact of particular debt arrangements and fees on the financial survival and confusion of individual consumers.

In short, there is no substitute for leaving the launch of a new Agency in the hands of those who understand the importance of its mission and care for its future. If the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection is to be what most of the public hopes for, it should get off to an independent start with a director who is chosen without an industry-encouraged compromise and who is broadly identified with its crucial mission.

This is an historic agency. And, we need to launch it with an historic leader. That leader should be Elizabeth Warren.

On Wednesday, Public Citizen delivered 15,000 petition signatures to The White House calling on them to appoint a true consumer champion, Elizabeth Warren, to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Watch:

The people-powered pressure is building. Our efforts helped pass Wall Street Reform. Now, they're helping to put a true Wall Street Watchdog on the job.