Throughout the crafting of financial reform legislation, the Consumer Federal Protection Bureau, a new entity to protect consumer transactions, was central to the fight. Large banks lobbied aggressively against it, spending an unprecedented amount of money. Now the fight is about who will lead it.

Progressive groups are waging a vocal campaign in support of Elizabeth Warren. President Obama tapped Warren to oversee the $700 billion bank bail out. As head of the panel to oversee the TARP program, the Harvard professor built a reputation of being tough on banks while aiming to protect home owners, victims of sub prime loans and other consumers.

Her get-tough-on-banks stance has resulted in a Warren fan club of sorts.

Aaron Schwartz, Co-Founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, started an online petition that now has more than 160,000 signatures. He says Warren is the right person for the job.

Warren “has been a real watchdog voice fighting for working people up against these big banks that have been cheating them,” Schwartz said.

The first person to lead the CFPB would have a large amount of authority to shape the role and scope of the bureau.

The President is in charge of appointing the person to head it, but Senate confirmation is needed.

On the “Diane Rehm Show,” Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) said Warren’s confirmation in the Senate would be difficult.

Conservative Democratic Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska said he is hearing from banks in Nebraska opposed to her. “Some have been more negative than positive,” he said.

Senator Nelson refused to say if he would support her. He wasn’t the only one.  Most Senators are withholding their opinion until the President makes his decision.

Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, deflected a question on his position. He said, “That’s a decision for the President.”

Jim Manley, Spokesperson to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, said he would be “dumbfounded” if Warren was nominated because of the difficulty she would receive being confirmed by the Senate.

But Independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is advocating on her behalf. He wrote the President a letter Monday. In a short interview, he said the way to show his dedication to reforming the financial industry is for the President to “do the right thing” and nominate Warren.

“There is a good deal of discontent within the Progressive community that the President has not been strong enough in terms of standing up to Wall Street,” Sanders said.

In a conference call with reporters last week, the President’s adviser, David Axelrod, said Warren is “obviously a candidate to lead this effort.”

Follow Leigh Ann on Twitter.

The Obama administration issued a report that says the $750 billion Recovery Act passed last year has created 3  million jobs. But with unemployment hovering at 9.5%, Democrats and President Obama have scaled back their approach to job creation and are blaming Republicans for blocking their efforts.

After the completion of health care, which sucked up a large portion of Congress‘ time, Democratic leaders and President Obama vowed to return their focus on “jobs, jobs, jobs.”

But job creating measures have yet to materialize.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid blamed the Republicans for holding up job creating legislation.

“They think the worse the economy is come November the better they’re going to do election wise,” Reid said.

Numerous Democratic aids, including from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s and Senator Reid’s offices, said numerous pieces of job creating legislation is held up in the Senate, unable to bypass Republican objections. It includes an extension of unemployment benefits, tax breaks and expansion of credit for small businesses and assistance for states to prevent teacher and other public service layoffs.

Republicans have successfully blocked much of the Democrats agenda, but the Democrats have scaled back their legislative job creating efforts.

Months after the first stimulus passed in 2009, there was widespread discussion of another large scale spending package, in the range of $100 – $300 billion, to put people to work.

But Republicans have successfully sounded the alarm on the deficit.  And as Democrats are facing a tough election in November, Democratic leadership aids said conversations about large scale spending bills to create jobs are not happening.

But economists say comprehensive bills are necessary to keep the economy from limping along or entering into a double-dip scenario.

Ethan Pollack, Economist with the liberal leaning Economic Policy Institute, said a large jobs bill is “imperative.”

“I think it is imperative that we’re doing a lot more than just pushing for a couple small little packages. I think those are much better than nothing, but any significant package would be in the hundreds of billions of dollars,” Pollack said.

At a meeting with Senate Democratic leaders at the White House Tuesday to discuss the legislative agenda, participants said the main focus was on jobs.

Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey said, “Everyone understands how important that is, not just politically but for the whole country.”

But Menendez and other attendees said the conversation was more of a discussion, and no specific plan of action emerged.

In a conference call with Reporters Wednesday, Christina Romer, Chair of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, insisted the President‘s top priority is jobs.  “It is all about jobs, jobs jobs,” Romer said.  She highlighted the President’s initiative announced last week to encourage countries to purchase American exports. But she did not indicate that a large comprehensive jobs bill is coming.

With more than 14 million recorded people out of work, according to the Department of Labor‘s June statistics, and fears of a stalled economic recovery, Democrats are urgently pointing to legislative victories, which they say have helped.

The White House is touting its most visible economic action as a success – the 18 month old stimulus. The White House Council of Economic Advisers released a quarterly report. It said the stimulus has created 3 million jobs and that the private sector has invested 3 dollars to every 1 government dollar.

Vice President Joe Biden said the Recovery Act and economic initiatives “are working.”

Since then, the other major job creating measure Democrats tout are small business tax cuts passed in the HIRE Act.

Though, Vice President Biden acknowledged there is more to do. “This first 6 months of this year, actually [added] 600,000 private sector jobs. Long way to go, Long, long way to go,” Biden said.

Follow Leigh Ann on Twitter.

Hear and audio version of this story on FSRN.

Starting Tuesday, it will be easier for Veterans to receive help and benefits for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The Department of Veterans Affairs has softened the cumbersome burden of proof that has denied may veterans.

The process to receive treatment for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is unwieldy. Largely because it’s so difficult for soldiers to prove they have experienced a trauma. They must provide evidence.

400,000 veterans are receiving PTSD assistance, but some have had to wait years to receive benefits. The cumbersome process has also resulted in at least tens of thousands of denied claims and an unwillingness to apply. If left untreated PTSD can lead to domestic violence, crime, homelessness and suicide.

But, after 8 years two US-led wars, President Obama announced the Veterans Affairs Department has made it easier to receive help.

“It’s a step that proves America will always be here for our veterans, just as they’ve been there for us. We won’t let them down.  We take care of our own,” Obama said in his weekly video address.

The new threshold is simpler. The veteran must be able to detail an incident that induced “fear” or “horror”, that incident must match his or her military assignment and a VA doctor must diagnose the symptoms as PTSD.

Michael Walcoff is Acting Under Secretary for Benefits at the VA. At a news conference Monday morning, he said, “With this new PTSD regulation, We are acknowledging the inherently stressful nature” of fighting in a war where “hostile and terrorist activities is always present.”

The new rules will be available for veterans of all wars. And because the front line is less clear in modern warfare, the new rules cover more than those soldiers who served traditional battlefield roles. That opens the door for more eligible veterans, especially women.

Paul Sullivan is Executive Director of the non-profit group Veterans for Common Sense. Through a Freedom of Information Act request, he found that only half of the 150,000 Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans who have applied for benefits received them.

“This new regulation cutting through the red tape is a great piece of really good news for veterans,” Sullivan said.

He says claims will be processed faster for vets to receive treatment more quickly, and that veterans will be more likely to apply for treatment and benefits because it will “de-stigmatize Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.”

It’s unclear how many more people might be apply, but veterans whose claims have already been denied are eligible to try again.

Benefits include up to $2700 a month in compensation and treatment at VA facilities.

Since 2009, President Obama has recommended that Congress increase the VA budget by 10% each year.

Despite more money flowing into the VA, Michael Walcoff with Veterans Affairs said he doesn’t think PTSD will receive more.

“We really believe the additional costs are going to be minimal. We believe that we are paying in one way or another, whether it’s a society cost and we don’t believe it’s going to add to the current cost,” Walcoff said.

More than half of the veterans treated for PTSD served in the Vietnam war.

But with relaxed rules, a change of the definition of the front line, and 2 wars dragging on, more soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan will be impacted. Of the two million soldiers who have served in the current two wars, the VA estimates at least 10 – 11% suffer from PTSD.

Follow Leigh Ann Caldwell on Twitter.

Hear an audio version on FSRN.

The confirmation hearings for Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be the next Supreme Court Justice begin Monday. The hearing could be full of political grandstanding, legal debate, or personal inquiry. I expect all of the above.

Words such as bright, wonderful temperament, great listener, straight shooter are often used to describe Kagan. When he announced her nomination May 10, President Obama said she has the “skill as a consensus-builder.”

President Obama also said she has an “openness to a broad array of viewpoints.” This worries both the left and the right as they are digging deep for any insight into how she might come down on key cases.

Kagan has penned very little that shed any light on her personal beliefs. She has not served as a judge and has floated in and out of government and academia.

Expect some Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to focus on the one thing they do know about her:  her time as Harvard Law School Dean when she kicked military recruiters off the Harvard Law School campus because of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy. Her action came when a lower court ruled the Solomon Amendment, which denies federal fund to universities who don’t allow military recruiters on campus, unconstitutional.  Kagan gave the military full access when the Supreme Court overturned the lower court decision. Republicans might frame her as a radical and anti-military.

Republicans will likely point to memos she wrote as a policy aid to President Bill Clinton and as a clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall on issues of abortion and guns.

Only support has been vocalized by Senate Democrats. They could use the hearings to criticize the court. They might frame the current Supreme Court as one of the most conservative courts ever under the hand of Chief Justice John Roberts, a George W. Bush nominee, and they will likely categorize the Court as partial to corporations over individuals.

Expect both the Republicans and the Democrats will play to their base. It is an election year.

Meanwhile, some groups on the left are holding out their support for Elena Kagan. Francis Boyle, a Professor of Law at the University of Illinois, said Kagan is too conservative. He points to statements she made during her confirmation hearings to be Solicitor General in 2009 where she said enemy combatants could be detained indefinitely. He notices that Jack Goldsmith, will testify on her behalf this week. Goldsmith was an architect of President Bush’s torture policies. In an email, Boyle said this “proves that the Obama administration… fully endorses the Bush administration’s war against terrorism.”

Meanwhile, The Washington Post reports that civil rights groups are disappointed in President Obama’s choice.

The Washington Post wrote:

“The National Bar Association, the main organization of black lawyers, has refrained from endorsing Kagan, giving her a lukewarm rating. The group’s president, Mavis T. Thompson, said it “had some qualms” about Kagan’s statements on crack-cocaine sentencing and what it regards as her inadequate emphasis while dean at Harvard Law School on diversifying the school along racial and ethnic lines. Others have expressed reservations about Kagan’s views on affirmative action, racial profiling and immigration.”

The hearing will begin Monday at 12:30 eastern.  Listen live to Pacifica Radio and FSRN’s coverage starting at noon eastern here.

Follow Leigh Ann Caldwell on Twitter.

Results from the busiest primary day of the midterm elections – with elections in 12 states – show that progressive challengers fell short while Tea Party challengers were much more successful.

In two high profile races, the incumbent beat progressive challengers.

Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln pulled out a surprising runoff victory over challenger Bill Halter for the US Senate seat. Lincoln, who won 52 percent of the vote, had the support of President Bill Clinton and the Democratic establishment while Halter was backed by labor unions and progressives.

At her victory party Tuesday evening, she said, “Your message is loud and clear. Washington needs to work for us.”

Progressives realized another defeat Tuesday night. Anti-war candidate Marcy Winograd garnered just 41 percent of the vote against incumbent Representative Jane Harman in California’s 36th district.

Meanwhile, conservative challengers, some with Tea Party backing, were more successful.

The biggest win came from Nevada where Tea Party candidate Sharron Angle won the nomination in a crowded field to challenge US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in November.

-  In Georgia, conservative Tom Graves won the nomination over the Republican Party backed candidate Lee Hawkins for a seat in Georgia’s 9th District for the US House of Representatives.

– In Maine, Paul LePage, who ran on a Tea Party platform for the Governor’s race, won a decisive victory.

-  In South Carolina, conservative Trey Gowdy forced 6 term incumbent Bob Inglis into a runoff in which Inglis is expected to lose.

Sarah Palin backed candidates were also successful. Nikki Haley will likely win a  run off for the Republican nomination for South Carolina’s governor.

Isaac Wood, House Race Editor at Sabato’s Crystal Ball, said conservative voters are looking for ideologically “pure” candidates.

“The Tea Party seems to be a more potent force right now in Republican primaries than liberals are in Democratic primaries,” Wood said.

Tea Party-like candidates did not win every race. They lost two races in Virginia and all races they challenged in California and New Jersey.

“Certainly there were some Tea Party victories to point to. But I think the more important story line is that there weren’t any liberal victories,” Wood said.

Progressives point to a victory in Pennsylvania a couple of weeks ago in which progressive backed Joe Sestak beat incumbent Arlen Specter for the US Senate seat as proof that they have not lost all races.

Levana Layendecker, Communications Director of Democracy for America, a grassroots group that works to elect progressives to office, said the left should not be compared to the right.  She said both political parties are forgetting about their base.

“Washington, DC establishment has lost touch with where most people are really at, especially the most deeply supportive people of the political parties,” Lavendecker said.

Some observes say while each race is different, the right has more momentum.

“In general there’s more energy on the right than on the left which is hardly surprising given that the right is out of power,” said Peter Beinart, Fellow at the New America Foundation, said

The flip side is that electing ideological primary candidates could make it more difficult to win in the general election.

CORRECTION: An earlier version said Winograd received 38% of the vote.