Charles Krauthammer has a an intersting column that contains this glimpse at a potential second Obama term that will send a chill up any conservatives spine.

Act One is over. The stimulus, Obamacare, and financial reform have exhausted his first-term mandate. It will bear no more heavy lifting. And the Democrats will pay the price for ideological overreaching by losing one or both houses, whether de facto or de jure. The rest of the first term will be spent consolidating these gains (writing the regulations, for example) and preparing for Act Two.

The next burst of ideological energy — massive regulation of the energy economy, federalizing higher education, and “comprehensive” immigration reform (i.e., amnesty) — will require a second mandate, meaning reelection in 2012.

The article continues to discuss  how Obama is planning to follow Bill Clinton’s re-election playbook from 1996. Obama’s calculation is that he can spend 2011 and 2012 running for re-election against Republicans in Congress (and George W. Bush, he can’t help himself) much the same way Clinton used Newt Gingrich and the Republicans for successful re-election bid in 1996.

While I agree that much of the political landscape is looking a lot like 1994, there are several key differences between today and 1996.

The Economy:

The Economy is in the tank and will remain in the tank for the foreseeable future with only anemic growth at best. Increases in employment always follow growth in the economy and as the Clinton campaign famously said “its the economy, stupid.” Persistent high unemployment will make it a difficult environment for incumbents to run in.

Bill Clinton:

Another difference between then and now is Bill Clinton. Clinton was a political opportunist without a strong ideology while Obama is a hardened ideologue committed to pushing an agenda that an overwhelming majority of  Americans reject.

In 1995, Bill Clinton was still, for the most part, a likable guy in the eyes of most Americans. The Lewinsky scandal didn’t break until 1998. Today, Obama is proving to be not very ingratiating.

Bob Dole & Ross Perot:

The GOP selected a weak candidate in Bob Dole to run against Clinton in 1996. Even though Dole was a weak candidate he was able to carry 19 states, 159 electoral votes and 40.7% of the popular vote. If Ross Perot didn’t siphon off 8.4% of the popular vote, conventional wisdom says Dole could have won in 1996. A stronger Conservative candidate would have carried that election.

Conservatives have been stung enough by the GOP running weak candidates. Tea Party activists are pushing hard for good, solid candidates that grass root Conservatives can enthusiastically support.  Of course, nothing is preventing the upper levels of the GOP from picking another re-tread candidate.

The Stakes:

The stakes are much higher today. The Progressives have managed to get a foot hold in their climb toward a single payer health care system and set the stage for massive tax increases through the trillion dollar stimulus bill. Conservatives need to be informed, engaged and avoid becoming overconfident.

The 2010 election is far from being in the bag.