The New Year is likely to be a difficult one for the Democrats. The Democrats picked up seats in the House and the Senate in both 2006 and 2008, but 2010 will almost certainly be a better year for the Republicans. The Democrats will probably retain control of both houses of congress, but will have smaller majorities. This will be most significant in the Senate, where the Democrats will not have close to the sixty votes needed for cloture after the November election.
In most midterm elections, the president's party loses seats, so 2010 will not be something out of the ordinary. Moreover, like most administrations, the Obama administration will be somewhat reigned in after November. The first two years of their administration are critical for all presidents because that is when they have the best chance to push through major legislation. After this period, regardless of how much wiser and more experienced the president becomes over the course of his time in office, the opportunity to make real change rarely comes again.
2009 was not an easy first year for Obama as not only did the unrealistic expectations which many had for him remain unmet, but he also failed to do some of the easy things which would have made Obama's progressive supporters more satisfied. The willingness, or perhaps enthusiasm, for compromise which characterized Obama's first year in office was variously interpreted as a sign of maturity or a sign of weakness, but led to bills on both health care and economic stimulus which were significantly different than what the president and many of his supporters initially would have liked.
After 2010, the Obama presidency, if history is any guide, will change substantially. It will become reactive, initiate few, if any, major pieces of legislation, and focus more on foreign policy where cooperation from congress is often less necessary. Even if he is reelected in 2012, the energy, Democratic majorities, appetite for change and political power of the president, which characterized 2009 will not be as great in the beginning of Obama's second term. After 2010, Obama's presidency will be about reaction and management not initiative and change.
This presents Obama with a clear choice which will have a major impact on the overall tone of his presidency. Obama could use the next ten months to begin to transition into the second phase of his presidency one where the focus is on reacting to various international events, making good judicial appointments, focusing on more modest goals and stewarding the economy, rather than on making the change which lay at the heart of Obama's electoral appeal and success in 2008. There is a certain logic to this approach as that is what Obama will probably spend the last two, or six, years of his presidency doing anyway.
Obama might also decide to take use 2010 to make one more attempt at making significant legislative change. This would be a far more risky strategy, but as with most risky strategies has far greater potential benefits. Obama has already compromised away real change on health care and did not take strong positions on financial reform, but it is still possible to take a stronger position on the latter issue. Moreover, there are other areas such as the environment, energy, consumer protection and the like where strong government legislation could bring about meaningful change.
There is no guarantee that Obama will succeed in any of these areas, but after 2010 his chances of success will drop even more. If Obama decides to take the more risky path and to use 2010 for one more attempt at passing an ambitious legislative agenda he will have to take the right lessons away from his first year in office. Obama's healthy desire for compromise and seeming unwillingness to play hardball with uncooperative legislators undermined his agenda in 2009. If the Obama administration understands this and changes their strategy accordingly in 2010, they will have a better chance of getting some good bills through in 2010.
While Obama may, by both temperament and intellect be good at the management and reactive part of governance, it is not what the country needs right now. Obama was elected with strong Demcoratic majorities in both houses amidst a national call for change. This presented the administration with the kind of opportunity that is rare in American political life. During its first year in office, due to either tactical missteps or poor political judgment, this opportunity was lost. Obama can take the easier option and move a year early to the management stage of his presidency, but it would mean lowering the expectations for his presidency and on some level admitting defeat. The harder, but more rewarding choice, would be to learn from 2009, and take one more year to try to make real change.
He must.
Hillary will be opposing him in 2012.
She'll be long gone from this trainwreck of an Administration and her supporters will not be fooled again by Obama and his fake promises.
Eliminating don't ask don't tell maybe the one thing he may have a decent chance of success.
Everything else on his agenda is a very bad idea for several reasons.
1. Most Americans are not in favor of Cap and Trade or Amnesty for illegals or EFCA. .
2. Dems will not stand up with him on these changes because its political suicide for them.
3. It will divide the country even more than it already is.
He should focus on (but I doubt if he will):
Border security and tightening immigration reform....not loosening it.
Economy without more taxpayer funded stimulus packages.
Overhauling the IRS tax system.
Getting our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Internal security measures in preparation for the growing internal terrorists threat that continues to rise.
Toppling Iran leadership by all means other than military.
Foreign trade alterations to improve American manufacturing competition and opportunities
com⋅pro⋅mise  –noun 1. a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.
3. something intermediate between different things:
Can somebody please tell me what "concessions" were made by the bluedogs in the healthcare fight? Seems to me all the concessions were on one side. i don't call that compromise, I call that capitulation.
You obviously are buying into the tabloid news channels current storyline that Democrats will in 2010 lose seats in the Congress.
If for one do not see it. I figure the Democrats, running on their 2009-2010 record in turning the country around, saving it from another Great Depression, providing health care reform and getting the dirt flying throughout the nation in job-creating projects WILL GAIN SEATS.
We'll see, won't we?
strike one - Larry Summers
strike two - Tim Geithner
strike three - Ben Bernanke
There are NO indications that Obama may get serious about efforts re: financial reform.
He got elected
He sold out.
End of story.
He is a Republican.
Could it be worse? Yes
Could it be better? HeII yes!
We still don't know where this guy stands or what he will do.
He is a weaker POTUS than Jimmy Carter.
Only ONE President could have done a better job of screwing the American people than Obama actually did - George W.
Now is the time to focus on congress and the senate. You have more power in an off-presidential congressional primary than in any other national election. Get out there and make a difference now. If the President wants real change, he'll have the support. If he doesn't, the changes in congress will scare him. We win either way.
Exactly how BAD do his financial/economic policies have to get before you start to wonder about the guy?
If TheBushYears taught us nothing else, it's that anyone can sell anything to Americans, if you're stolid & relentless in your sales pitch & tactics. It's not that Bush&R0ve were geniuses & knew something that nobody else knew; Bush&R0ve were just more ruthless (clumsy & careless many political graybeards would say) in doing what politicians & the parties had gone to great lengths to hide from Americans.
Obama didn't get to be the first black president, vanquish the Clinton machine & the oldest, most experienced politicians in our nation's history (including the R0ve machine) by not having mastered these skills. Nor do Democratic politicians (more incumbents than ever, in office longer) not know how to do it. How do you think Democrats managed to keep impeaching Bush&Cheney off the table & have us still reelecting them, not marching on Washington with torches&pitchforks?
Obama&Democrats know how to do it -- They don't want to do it.
The trick for them has been to keep the many different populist groups believing that they really do support our issues, but that they're merely inept. And to get us to keep voting for them in spite of their failure to deliver on any of our alleged shared objectives.
Unfortunately , the government does not have very many good options in hard times. So, Obama will have a tougher time. As we all will.
The President does have greater freedom of action in foreign policy. In domestic policy the president has little of that. Congress has equal power.
They - the WH, and Dems in Congress chose NOT TO....
just wait for the Repubs to campaign against Dems who voted for the bailouts!
They will do that and the people will fall for it!
There is a very strong populists movement festering in the country, the fat cats on Wall Street and the corporate monoliths who have bought out our government and helped bring this country to it's knees is becoming the main topic of almost every dinner table in America, whether it be a discussion on tax breaks for the rich, or the FDA allowing a crucial medical device to be licensed and brought to market with very limited testing and studies to ensure it's safety and effectiveness.
The first person to tap into America's frustration and discontent successfully will be our next president.
How Obama has failed to do this speaks volumes towards his lack of insight.