I don't have any reason to be hopeful considering Obama's track record.

Here's to hoping Elizabeth Warren runs for President in 2016.

I'd love EW to run, too, but that misses the point.

The glaring lesson of the last two decades has been that if one party chooses to be obstructionist, virtually no substantive change can pass Congress and be signed into law by the Prez unless one party controls the House and a supermajority of 60 votes in the Senate. Unless the party controls 2/3 of House AND Senate (and can thus override presidential vetoes), it needs to hold the presidency as well. Even if one party manages to do all of the above, they could STILL have their legislation invalidated by the dead hand control of prior party administrations expressed in the makeup of the Supreme Court.

This deeply conservative system worked (depending on your perspective) while our population was more homogenous ideologically, but it quite plainly doesn't work anymore.

Without significant structural change (e.g. Senate rule reform), it's going to continue to be basically impossible for either party to advance ANY agenda in a meaningful way for the foreseeable future, and we'll keep on this ludicrous treadmill of pointlessly hoping that if we change some of the faces/party affiliations at regular intervals (because that last group of bums couldn't get anything done, dadgummit!), the structural problem will disappear and national government will actually function in some decisive, satisfying way.

The identities basically don't matter, only the math demanded by the structure.

@CC, you have a very pretty way of saying, "smash the state." Kidding aside, I agree with you. Though meaningful reforms to our gov't seems like it's a long way off; I can't see any practical way to achieve it. The ingrained politicians aren't going to do anything that may effect the system that keeps them in power.

BRB, gonna have a cry now.

@ Fruit Cup, the hair-tearing thing is that the state doesn't really need to be smashed, it needs three basic tweaks, only one of which require amending the Const. (thanks to Citizens United):

1) Senate rule reform (I'd even be in favor of getting rid of the Senate entirely) that allows a simple majority to prevail on all matters that don't involve amending the Const. (e.g. 2/3 for treaties and confirmations)

2) Truly meaningful campaign finance reform.

3) Mandatory voting accompanied by a mid-week federal holiday for the purpose.

If you can contain the effect of big money on politics and let majorities actually rule (as checked by the Senate, where two senators from Rhode Island can negate the two senators from California), a) majority parties will actually be able to govern, thus b) they will be truly accountable for the results of those policies, which can c) then be ratified or rejected each election cycle by all the voters of the land.

The most cry-worthy part of the whole thing is that of all people, our fucking Constitutional Law professor President should have known how critical Senate rule reform was, and it should have been his very first piece of business.

If he could have convincingly made the case and achieved this in the first 6 months of his presidency, we might have actually had the administration many Democrats dared to hope for when they prevailed in 2008.

I'd also like to add that the legislative procedure for adding riders to existing bills should be abolished.