For President Obama, the next twelve months will define his presidency. After taking office with tremendous momentum, 2009 dealt a blow to the Obama administration. Last January, many Americans were in rapture over the charismatic and eloquent leader who promised change. Despite high hopes and expectations, when it came time to govern this country and lead the world, the global community and American voters indicated that perhaps they do not see Obama as a strong, effective leader. According to Gallup, Obama’s disapproval rating is at 41 percent. What has led to this drastic decline?

A common theme during his first year was Obama’s willingness to engage in a risky political tactic: impromptu appearances at summits or important votes in order to influence the outcome. Unfortunately, every attempt has failed. In 2009, Obama traveled twice to Copenhagen: in October to support Chicago’s Olympic bid and again in December to urge world leaders to take comprehensive action on climate change. In addition, he sent Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Moscow to wheel and deal on security issues with Russia. In review, Rio de Janeiro will host the Olympics, the summit on climate change ended bitterly and the US surrendered key strategic programs without unequivocal reciprocation from the Kremlin.

Maybe Obama thought he had engendered enough international goodwill to take the necessary political risks in Copenhagen and Moscow.

Instead, his administration has become akin to Apollo 13 in that the White House is bleeding a valuable resource — political capital. Despite his rhetoric and intentions, the international community is beginning to realize that our president may never become the expected formidable political player and will see him as a weak and ineffective leader.

Domestically, Obama has fared no better. Last month, Republican Scott Brown won the Massachusetts special Senate election on a simple platform: anti-Senate health care bill and anti-establishment. Although Democrats attempted to shift the debate away from health care, the Republicans successfully framed the election as a referendum on Obama’s top legislative priority. With his presidential agenda on the line, Obama traveled to Boston.

The Massachusetts vote highlights two important points about the Obama administration. The first is the White House’s glaring inability to replace Ted Kennedy, who championed health care, with a Democrat. Second, it highlights the lack of bipartisanship on this massive legislation. During his campaign, Obama pledged to end partisanship; however, the health care bill ended in a partisan 60-40 vote, largely because the president lacked the leadership necessary to control the bill’s debate.

Successful leadership requires supplementing oratorical skill with action. Despite raising the hopes of millions, Obama has failed to deliver, or at least make headway, on the promises that got him elected.

Obama’s biggest test will be his response to Brown’s election. The midterms, while historically an anti-establishment election, will be a barometer of the national political climate. Key House and Senate positions are open for election and how many seats the Republicans pick up in Congress this year will be an indication of the approval of the president and his agenda. If Obama doesn’t take decisive action and forge ahead on domestic and international policies, he could be in for the fight of his life in 2012.

Daniel Flesch, senior in LAS