Obama hurt the 2010 election prospects:
: (emp add)
One positive that we can take out of this [health care legislation drama] is that Lieberman just provided a bit of a rallying cry and rationale for electing more Democratic senators. If we can net three or four more Democratic senators in the 2010 midterms, we won't have to suffer through the kinds of senatorial vetoes that stymied the reform effort in this Congress. (...)
Netting Senate seats is certainly not assured, but we at least have a clear reason to hope it happens and to work towards that goal.
Remember what Yglesias wrote
last month? (bold
The Obama team seems to me to have consistently underrated the extent to which the ability to play offense in the 2010 elections would determine the fate of their legislative agenda. Or to look at it another way, they placed an undue amount of emphasis on outreach and too little on inspiring fear, as a potential way to gain bipartisan support for a legislative agenda. Thus instead of encouraging Tom Vilsack, Kathleen Sebelius, and Janet Napolitano to run for GOP-held 2010 Senate seats, he appointed all three to his cabinet. And in addition to the one Senate seat left open by his own victory, he jeopardized safe seats in New York, Colorado, and Delaware by bringing Hillary Clinton, Ken Salazar, and Joe Biden into his administration. Then on top of that, Democrats failed to get the strongest possible candidate for a very winnable North Carolina race, and couldn’t persuade Houston Mayor Bill White to run for Senate rather than Governor.
Right now, the Obama administration is looking weak and not politically adroit.
The Democrats have the positive attitude of the optimist who has just fallen out of an airplane.
So far so good
From the beginning I thought Obama's appointing all these Senators was a crazy idea.