(Thumbnail image: The New York Times)

Dodd: "We must protect American consumers and honest businesses so that they can, we can, restore optimism in our economy and confidence in our institutions, renew the flow of credit and capital, reestablish America as a world leader."

Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut has introduced his long-awaited financial regulatory reform bill--to a chorus of critics who say the bill just isn't strong enough.

The White House originally suggested creating a Consumer Financial Protection Agency that would be independent of other government bureaus, but Senator Dodd's bill sets it within the Federal Reserve. MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan suggests that doesn't make any sense.

"His plan would create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency that would write the rules governing mortgages and loans... an independent agency, except that it will be housed within the Federal Reserve, which is not entirely unlike housing the Food and Drug Administration at Pfzier.  Would you take those pills?"

A CNN correspondent points to another issue the bill aims to address-- so-called too-big-to-fail companies, and says Dodd's bill doesn't seem to do what was promised there, either.

"Lawmakers said they'll never let companies get too big again, this bill doesn't do that.  We could still have too-big-to-fail companies, but it creates a new council that has the power to enforce, to force these huge companies like AIG to shrink if they're on the verge of collapse."

A MarketWatch columnist tells the Wall Street Journal some of the seemingly "watered down" parts of the bill could be blamed on bipartisan compromise.

"I think that there is a definite feel in this bill of the negotations that took place, and I think that I'm guessing that's with an eye towards passage... I really do think that the way this bill is presented, Wall Street isn't gonna like this bill, but I think there's also some recognition that it could be a lot worse."

But some in the media say, don't be too quick to judge.  The Daily Kos concludes,

"Ultimately, the worth of this legislation... will depend on whether what has happened in the past can be avoided in the future. As [economist] Simon Johnson has pointed out, 'every regulator sent to control big banks over the past 30 years has ended up completely captured.' If that can be changed, then financial reform might actually mean something."