The dissection of Coakley's loss will no doubt go on for some time---I would only add a wild speculation that if the Red Sox or Patriots had won free-floating anger, especally male-anger, might not have been as readily available to channel into Tea-partyism. But, what this entire last year tells us is more important. We have a one-party pseudo-democracy that resembles the relationships between the famous Harlem Globetrotters and their perennial patsy: The Washington Generals.
When the Republicans are in power,like the Globetrotters when they needed to score,they do precisely as they please and run roughshod over the Democrats. The don't talk about bi-partisanship because they understand there is only their party. Bush was a criminal and incompetent, but he felt totally at ease using all the power he could muster---legal or illegal--to do whatever he wanted. He didn't hesitate to use signing statements when the Democrats managed to score a few buckets by passing progressive legislation in the Senate and House. He went to reconciliation to impose his tax cuts for the rich.
When nominally out of power--as now--Republicans still act as the governing party because they know they can, just like the Trotters might act early in the game when Red Klotz would score a few for the Generals and fans would wonder if an upset was in the making. They have brilliantly propagandized and confused a gullible public and unfailingly used the filibuster to render any progressive legislation DOA. The Democrats almost never have returned the favor.
As the Generals always seemed aware that they were ultimately hapless, Democrats never exude confidence when in power. They will, for example, nearly always choose Defense and Treasury cabinet heads from Republican ranks, to reassure Republicans they aren't serious about domestic reform or altering foreign policy.
I enthusiastically supported Obama after reading his first book, but did worry that his fundamental decency and thoughtfulness and empathy might make him a great friend and husband, but a weak leader. That seems to be the case. Whether it's fighting for a larger stimulus, threatening reconciliation to get a robust public option, or putting the hammer to Israel (cutting off aid if they didn't dismantle settlements), he has shown no taste for combat. I gave up on him when I heard he told someone he would rather get less than what he wanted on health care with a few Republican votes than all he wanted with none. What's the point of having a multi-party system if your overriding goal is to be popular with the opposition who LOST the election and who should be helpless to block your program.
I am not one who am pleased that the inadequate health care bill probably is doomed now that the supermajority in the senate has been lost. I do believe that half a loaf is better than none if none is the only likely alternative and that's the only one Obama seemed to consider. But now, to save his presidency, if nothing else, there is a motive for Obama to change his spots and USE his power as Bush did. He needs ultimately to mobilize people to put pressure on their Demoratic senators to abolish the filibuster rule which is a cancer on democratic rule. He needs to use reconciliation in the meantime for healthcare reform and other policies that can be implemented through that path given its limitations (i.e. legislation that involves spending). Even the Washington Generals won every hundred games or so.