THE FIRST YEAR The union is in a state of deep and justifiable anxiety about jobs and mortgages and two long, bloody wars. President Barack Obama did not create these problems, and none could be solved in one year. But 2009 offered powerful and, at times, bruising lessons for a new president struggling to fulfill the seismic promise of his election. Obama's first State of the Union address, delivered after this editorial was published, was a chance to show what he has learned and to tell Americans how he intends to govern in the next three years. There is no denying the world's relief that Obama is very much not George W. Bush. He is managing the necessary exit from Iraq. His decision to send additional troops to Afghanistan (the necessary war President Bush disastrously neglected) was courageous and strategically sound. He leads global climate talks instead of sneering at them. At home, Obama won an economic recovery bill that was too small but staved off an even deeper recession. He raised fuel standards for cars and appointed Sonia Sotomayor to a Supreme Court that had been drifting dangerously rightward. That is good but not enough. Unemployment is still 10 percent. Bankers and their lobbyists (and much of Capitol Hill) are resisting essential financial reforms. The political climate in Washington is venomous. The Democratic Party is scared of its own shadow. The Republicans' only legislative plan is to carp and filibuster. We respect Obama's deliberative nature, and we, too, would like to see bipartisan cooperation. In 2009, Obama underestimated the Republicans' determination to block anything he proposed. When the economy was imploding only three Republican senators voted for the absolutely essential stimulus bill; none agreed to back health care reform or to even vote to end a filibuster. While he was deliberating and negotiating, Obama let his critics define and distort his policies. The public has not forgotten the summer of death panels. Obama needs to be tougher, faster and clearer going forward. If the Republicans want to continue to block bills that the country wants and needs, he should let them filibuster so the public can take notice. (Last December, the Republicans in the Senate tried to block the annual defense spending bill because an extension of unemployment benefits was attached to it. After that mischief failed, they voted for the bill in overwhelming numbers.) Rather than scaling back health care reform to court Republicans, he might try challenging them to come up with a serious plan -- one that provides real security for all Americans and has a real chance of controlling costs. While Obama needs to be tougher and more vocal, it would be a mistake for him to conclude that what's needed is shrill populism and a lurch to the left. After their taxpayer-financed bailout, he is right to call for additional taxes on the big banks. (And he should support the drive in the House to tax bankers' obscene bonuses.) But he must address the core issues that brought the economy to near ruin and insist on rigorous reforms of the financial system. Obama was right to propose a bipartisan panel on deficit reduction, and it was hypocritical of Senate Republicans to refuse to vote on it. We are as concerned as most Americans about the deficit, but right now the country does not need Obama to be a deficit hawk. The lesson of 2009 was that Americans need jobs and help with their mortgages. The private sector seems unlikely to propel a self-sustaining recovery any time soon. That means more stimulus spending, not less, certainly much more than the $154 billion jobs bill the House has passed. In a year as president, Obama has often reminded us that he is a gifted orator, able to inspire with grand vision and with the simple truth frankly spoken. The State of the Union was a good chance to address the big debates, to make clear that he would press ahead with health care and challenge the Republicans to work with him or get out of the way. It was long in coming. JAPAN AND THE AMERICAN BASES It took the United States and Japan a decade to negotiate a deal that would reduce the number of American troops on Okinawa and reposition those that remain. Japan's new prime minister, Yukio Hatoyama, is refusing, so far, to commit to the agreement, and the Obama administration is being less than patient. Before any serious damage is done to this important alliance, both countries must work harder to find a compromise. The 2006 agreement was designed to lessen tensions between Okinawans and the more than 20,000 American troops they host. The deal includes moving 2,000 Marines from the Futenma U.S. Marine air station in the city of Ginowan to the less populated Nago on Okinawa's northern coast, and relocating 8,000 other Marines to Guam. Before his party's landslide election in August, Hatoyama called for moving the base off of Okinawa or out of Japan altogether. The Pentagon got off to a bad start by insisting that Tokyo abide by its commitments. Hatoyama now says that he will defer any decision until May. Nago's newly elected mayor has announced that he doesn't want the Marines to move to his city. We hope the Obama administration shows flexibility and patience when two senior officials visit Japan for security talks this week. They should encourage Hatoyama to prove his commitment to being an 'equal partner' by offering solutions. And the United States must make a more compelling case for stationing troops in Japan. (There are another 20,000 American troops stationed elsewhere in Japan or just off the coast.) The alliance is more important than the basing agreement. But the longer the agreement is in limbo, the more it stirs questions about the future of the alliance. There are worrying signs that many of Japan's new leaders and its postwar generation don't understand the full value of the security partnership. A half-century of American protection remains a bargain for the Japanese. In much of Asia, it's seen as an essential balance against a rising China and a defense, if needed, against North Korea. The United States must respect Hatoyama's desire to strike a more independent course, including by seeking improved ties with China. A strong and equal partnership between Tokyo and Washington is in both countries' overwhelming interest. SO IT'S GRANNY'S FAULT? With its trysting governor and 'you lie!' congressman, South Carolina has suffered more than its share of politician-induced embarrassment. Now Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer has topped them, cruelly equating government help for the poor to 'feeding stray animals.' Bauer, who is running for governor, told a conservative political crowd about his grandmother's warning against feeding strays. 'You know why? Because they breed!' boomed the popular Republican. 'You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that.' He eschewed what he described as political correctness and sternly called for the state to 'curtail that type of behavior' by taking away assistance if the parents of children receiving subsidized lunches don't show up for school conferences. 'You show me the school that has the highest free and reduced lunch, and I'll show you the worst test scores, folks,' said Bauer. In casting himself as the candidate of heartless civics, if not nitwit eugenics, Bauer at least stirred an encouraging furor. Outraged residents point out that South Carolina has one of the highest poverty rates in the nation, with unemployment rising to 12.6 percent in a Great Recession the poor hardly caused. Fifty-eight percent of the state's students receive subsidized lunches. Now watch Bauer backpedal. He insists he was a victim of the media, not his own overreach in the politics of class resentment. But his words are out there. With a lieutenant governor like Bauer in the wings, it's become clearer why the South Carolina Legislature declined to impeach Gov. Mark Sanford for going AWOL at taxpayers' expense in pursuit of his mistress. Voters should make Bauer eat his words. INTERNET VOTING, STILL IN BETA Internet voting is in its infancy, and still far too unreliable, but states are starting to allow it and the trend is accelerating because of a new federal law that requires greater efforts to help military and other overseas voters cast ballots. Men and women in uniform must have a fair opportunity to vote, but allowing online voting in its current state could open elections up to vote theft and other mischief. It is often hard for military voters to get ballots, and because of distance and unreliable mail service, it can be difficult or impossible for them to meet election deadlines. A year ago, the Pew Center on the States found that more than one-third of states do not provide military voters stationed abroad with enough time to vote, or are at high risk of not providing enough time. To address this problem, the new Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act requires states in most cases to get ballots to military and overseas voters well in advance of regularly scheduled federal elections. But the value of removing roadblocks is undermined when votes are put at risk, which can happen when ballots are returned by e-mail or are actually cast on a Web site. Massachusetts recently enacted a law allowing service members to vote by e-mail overseas. According to Verified Voting, a group that works to ensure reliable elections, 16 states allow some form of Internet voting, and more than a dozen -- including Alabama, Hawaii, Illinois and Washington -- are considering it. E-mail can be intercepted, and voting Web sites can be hacked or taken down by malicious attacks. There are not even agreed-upon standards for what safety measures are necessary. In many cases, it is not possible to ensure a secret ballot when votes are cast online or by e-mail. That is a particular concern for military voting, where soldiers could come under pressure from commanding officers about their choice of a candidate. The Internet can help improve overseas voting if it is used wisely. It can be a good way to get information about elections and candidates out to faraway voters, and to deliver blank ballots. Right now, those ballots should not be returned online. 