Opinion: Will Health Care Be the Win Obama Needs?

(Feb. 22) -- Today, after a year of talking and talking and talking about the need to fix the nation's health care system, President Barack Obama finally released his own health care plan, in hopes that it will push health care reform over the finish line.

It better. If the president doesn't score some major legislative victories soon, his presidency and the hopes of progressives across America are toast for years to come.

Full disclosure: In the general election of 2008, I supported, worked some phones and voted for Barack Obama. He promised change after eight years of monolithic mismanagement and mangled English. And I was ready for it.

With his historic victory, Obama proved anyone could grow up to be president of the United States. And that was right after George W. Bush proved you don't even have to grow up to be president of the United States.

Out of the gate, Obama struck some as too cocky: speaking in complete sentences, actually having a command of the facts. Unfortunately, we now know command of the facts alone doesn't automatically mean command of your agenda, even with a commanding majority in both the House and Senate.

And one year into his term, it's 0 for Obama. Even the lowly New Jersey Nets have five wins this season.

Heck, much as it pains me to say it, for better or worse, George W. Bush got things done. True, he cashed in on the 9/11 fear factor to accomplish most of his goals. But before any of that, as a first-year president, Dubya managed to get his tax cuts and his signature "No Child Left Behind" legislation through Congress -- the latter with chief political rival Ted Kennedy carrying water for the cause. Can you imagine any Senate Republican doing the equivalent today?

Now if you ask the Obama camp, they'll tell you I'm flat-out wrong. "What about the emergency economic stimulus," they'll ask? "Don't we get some credit for that?" Well, yeah ... but so what?

For days the Obama administration has been out and about, touting the success of that bill, admitting that "while it didn't actually make things better, it kept them from getting worse." Not exactly the winning campaign slogan congressional Democrats were hoping to run on, but then Obama's failure to succeed is their fault, too.

Sure, Democrats helped him pass that one measly $800 billion package. But the House couldn't even do it unanimously, and the Senate barely got the ridiculous 60 votes it takes to get over the hump. And for all that effort, it's not yet clear if they even have the fire under control? In the interim, the real Obama agenda continues to flounder.

When it comes to Obama's campaign issues -- health care, jobs, energy, trade and environment, to name a few -- he and his team have pushed a lot of balls into the red zone (a football euphemism for "getting close"), but they haven't put a single one into the end zone.

Even with a commanding majority in the House and 58 to 59 reliable votes in the Senate, virtually everything this president wants from the legislative branch is metaphorically curled up in the corner, rocking nervously back and forth. And like a teen unable to get past first base with his girl, the White House seems frustrated, exhausted and completely out of ideas.

To be fair, it's not like this failure to legislate is happening in a vacuum. If the president is 0 for ... the GOP is simply "No for" Obama.

And for a minority party, the GOP plays an impressively solid defense. Overwhelmingly out-numbered by Democrats in the House and with only 41 votes in the Senate, the "loyal opposition" has managed to block, stop, delay and flat-out kill virtually everything of substance this president has tried to achieve. All the while whining like spoiled children that nobody "will listen to their ideas.'" (Nevermind that their "ideas" got us into this mess in the first place.)

Conservatives are sure Obama's "0 for" at this point means their future is a definite "go for." And to hammer the point home, no less an expert than Dick Cheney brought last week's CPAC convention to its feet when he boldly predicted that "0 for" Obama was a one-termer for sure. Maybe? But as one burdened by memory of the recent past, I feel obligated to remind everybody: that's the same Dick Cheney who predicted we'd be welcomed as liberators in Iraq and the war would be over in three weeks.

Still, if Obama wants to prove Cheney wrong this time, he'd better get at least one big win up on the boards.