The Senate election in Massachusetts may signal much more that dissatisfaction with the current administration; it may signal and end to partisan politics as we have known it.

Given the euphoria and high expectations at Obama’s election in the midst of the worst financial crisis in half a century, it was already difficult not to disappoint. Given the generalities that accompany a campaign and the utter lack of experience he was elected more as an act of faith and hope than for noted qualifications and solutions. Wedding pictures fade.

The first year is often a learning year for a president. Many errors in judgment can be corrected and lead to a successful term and re-election. But this first year has been a year of firsts. The tea party movement should not have been taken lightly. This was a bottom up political movement. Protesters were neither praising or condemning parties; they were condemning their actions.

Independents have been critical  to election outcomes in our last 50 years.  Independents offer an accountability that party loyalists do not.  Unfortunately they also have fewer clear principles that accompany party affiliation. They can be swayed by charisma; they elected Obama.  And on January 19, just more than year later, they rejected him.

The rise of the independents may be heralding a new age that renders both political parties irrelevant. The reaction to Ben Nelson’s capitulation on health care from his own state was a note on the change coming. Anti incumbent attitudes are nothing new. But when the opportunity came to turn them out we usually found that unpopular incumbents were always those in other states and districts; we tended to tolerate our own as long as they ‘brought home the bacon’.

Nebraska ended that. They soundingly thrashed Nelson in spite of the lucrative special deal he made for his constituents. This should have alarmed the administration more than Brown’s victory.

Brown’s victory was a vote against the style as well as the substance.   When George H. Bush broke his clear pledge (“Read my lips”) and raised taxes he lost the independents and many of his own party. The independents do not like blatant lies and promises broken.  Obama promised bipartisanship and tried to force through one of the biggest changes in a decade with no Republican support.  He promised transparency yet closed door meetings with no press were common. He promised a five day posting period to review all legislation yet thousand page bills were voted on with little to no time to read them.

He was going to shun special interests yet cut special deals with unions.  Did he think nobody would notice?

If a bill has merit, it doesn’t need bribes and closed doors to pass. The more they bribed and gave into special interests the more it was rejected.  All the speeches and interviews only made it worse.

The voters have a sense of fairness and truth.  They expected more of it and get less. That a party with bigger majorities in both houses than their opponents have had in a century could not get a major bill through signals that either that their bills stink or that they are politically incompetent.

Brown’s victory over Coakley is certainly a setback for the current administration no matter how they spin it. But another major development in the electoral process was largely missed.

When Ben Nelson flipped for Obama Care in the Senate it was seen as a betrayal of his pro life principles.  Yet Nelson likely thought he was doing his job of bringing home the bacon for his Nebraska constituents by getting such special treatment to offset his state’s higher Medicaid cost.

In the past anti-incumbent fever was directed at other politicians; ours was OK as long as he succeeded in protecting his constituency’s interest. In this case the uproar from Nelson’s own state was overwhelming. This was very different;  the governor and the citizens of Nebraska were no longer concerned in benefiting from special deals if it meant voting for bad legislation. Such a voter attitude could spell the end of pork barrel politics.

The climate of voter outrage is reaching beyond anti-liberal, partisan preference, and even anti-incumbent.  A certain level of ‘corruption’ that was an accepted part of American politics is being soundly rejected.  Closed door meetings, blatant partisanship, unaccounted for expensive trips, unmitigated arrogance, broken promises, and blatant hubris and hypocrisy is being rejected as components of our political scene.

This change will hopefully encourage a new kind of political leader from both parties to enter the political scene.  The exit of the old guard who clearly sees that they cannot get re-elected will help this process.

A new center is emerging that in intolerant of political gain at any cost. I don’t think they are going to back down.

The race in Massachusetts is stunning.  If Democrat Coakley is unable to beat Republican Brown in the bluest of blue states, then any Democrat is vulnerable. Just the fact that this race is close  should be a startling wakeup call to the Democratic party.

It appears that Brown is doing and saying all the right things and Coakley is doing just the opposite. If defeated the party will blame the candidate , and refuse to see it as a referendum on the current administration. Brown is running against Coakley on her statements, her policies, and her record. Brown is being attacked by invoking references to Bush and “tea baggers.”

Last Wednesday the odd at the trading site Intrade had the odds of a Coakley win at 85 to Brown 15, this morning it 53/47; a remarkable shift.

The Democrats have grossly misread their mandate and their hubris has dwarfed even that of the Bush administration. This mismanagement of their party’s victory should be laid squarely at the feet of their leaders, especially Pelosi and Reid. Their first constructive step to clawing their way back from the abyss should be to quickly replace both of them.  It is their hubris, partisanship and arrogance that are putting the nails in Kennedy’s coffin.