I have not seen this hit the news wires, but got this via Lisa Epstein, in turn from Our Financial Security, which is part of the Center for American Progress, which is a heavyweight Democrat think tank (with of course a whole list of talking points to rebut Republican kvetching about the use of a recess appointment).

This move raises the obvious question: why didn’t Obama make a recess appointment of Elizabeth Warren, either back in the day when she was the de facto head, or after getting her out of the limelight for a bit (so that the Republicans would be less likely, as turned out to be the case, to engage in procedural gamesmanship to thwart a recess installation)? We had discusses this at the time, but the major reasons seemed to be: 1. Obama was never going to do anything that would seriously ruffle the banks, given that that they are a major source of campaign funds; 2. Even if Obama had a weak moment in which he was tempted to ignore consideration 1 (as in Warren might persuade banks that what was good for consumers might be good for them too), an Warren appointment would be over Geithner’s dead body, and Obama was and is dependent on Geithner; and 3. Having Warren run for the Scott Brown seat is useful to the Dems (the Dems lacked a really strong alternative in Mass, she pulls money from other Republican campaigns, and she is likely to become a largely non-threatening ornament).

Regardless of the motives, this move proves yet again what Obama’s real priorities are, and they ain’t you and me. Cordray was opportunistic in his anti-bank moves in Ohio and is no substitute for Warren.