The stated purpose of the financial regulatory bill the Senate passed Thursday is: "To promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end 'too big to fail,' to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes."

Does it do all of that? Sort of.

Given that the financial services industry was spending $1.4 million a day lobbying Congress on the financial regulation bill, "sort of" is a major victory for the American people. Whether it is a major defeat for banks depends on how clever they are in exploiting some of its not-exactly-waterproof provisions.

Senate passage also was a sort-of-major victory for President Barack Obama, who curiously worries that the Senate bill goes too far by forcing banks to spin off parts of their lucrative trading in high-risk derivatives. We'd argue that it didn't go far enough, that banks and their investment businesses should have been separated as they were before 1999.

But politics is (or at least it used to be) the art of compromise. That four Republicans joined 55 Democrats in voting aye and that two Democrats joined 37 Republicans in voting no is a sign that bipartisanship is not entirely dead.

Or perhaps it is a sign that the excesses of Wall Street that triggered the 2008 financial collapse were so egregious that only born-in-the-blood conservatives would vote to ignore them. It will be interesting this fall to see how Republicans defend their votes against reform.

The bill is the most assertive reform of the banking and financial industry since the New Deal. It reforms banking practices. It gives government regulators broad powers to monitor systemic risk to the financial system and wind down troubled financial firms without taxpayer bailouts. It creates a Consumer Financial Protection Agency to police the credit card, auto loan and mortgage industries.

The Senate version must be reconciled with House Bill 4173 passed last December. Thanks to the Securities and Exchange Commission's lawsuit against Goldman Sachs over the antics of "Fabulous" Fabrice Tourre and cohorts, and ongoing concern over high unemployment, tight credit and the European debt crisis, the conference committee should fashion the most stringent bill possible.

That means putting enforcement provisions in the Senate's tighter rules on derivative trading. It means keeping the Senate's restrictions against banks putting clients' money at risk with investments that don't benefit clients. It means keeping the House's independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency and $150 billion "bailout tax" on large banks.

June's conference committee meetings might be televised. Who would have thought the day would come when conference committee meetings were must-see TV?