If the Democrats end up loosing many seats in the 2010 elections, will President Obama end up being a "lame-duck" President?

Technically, an elected official is only a lame duck if "approaching the end of his or her tenure, and especially an official whose successor has already been elected. " What will happen is that Obama may have to water down many initiatives in order for the initiatives to be passed into law. Cheers!

I think the other answer was a little bit vague, and I believe this quote describes what a "lame duck" president is much more clearly: ---------quote------------ Lame duck politicians are serving out their final terms because they have lost a re-election or are no longer eligible to serve. The term is often used to describe sitting presidents who have served two terms, and have entered their last year. It's somewhat mean-spirited, looking toward the future while the incumbent remains in office -- for the time being.

---------/quote------------ So, President Obama would not be considered a "lame duck" until either the 2012 election is won by someone else OR until 2016 if he were to win the 2012 election. I feel like there is a term for the situation you're describing: a legislative majority party that differs from the president's party, but no searching of mine turned up the term. This is not an uncommon occurrence in history though.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.