We've now officially entered what I have decided to call "Flagpole Season" -- as in: "run it up the flagpole, and see who salutes." I could just have easily called it "Trial Balloon Season," but we're all still a little too close to Balloon Boy for that one to "fly" (as it were). But whatever you call it, the time has come for Barack Obama's White House to figure out what they're going to tackle next (other than, of course, "jobs, jobs, jobs"). As they do, they're going to be leaking like a sieve for the next few weeks -- all in preparation for the biggest presidential speech of the year, the State Of The Union, which is now roughly three weeks away.

To be blunt, Obama needs to pick a few fights. Healthcare reform is winding up, but this particular fight has been so long and hard-fought that even proponents of the reform bill are exhausted and would really prefer not to hear or talk about it much longer. This is telling, because Democrats (all the way up to Obama) have simply not done a good job on the communications front during this battle. Who would have thought, a year ago, that Obama's main problems would be a lack of communication skills, and a perceived lack of passion in fighting for what he said he believed in?

The communications problem will take care of itself, with the speech. This is the yearly platform for Obama to lay out his agenda, and he's not going to blow it, most likely.

But the follow-through is important. Because Obama's got to get personally involved in some fights in order to turn his sinking poll numbers around. Even the issues he picks to fight about are secondary to the fact itself that he's picking some things to fight about. Because Obama has taken "cool and detached" about as far as it can go. He needs to show some passion, and some personal involvement in the next fights he picks.

There are quite a few issues left to deal with. Two in particular which just leaked are certainly interesting: pushing hard to get "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" overturned in the next military appropriations bill; and pushing hard to get a consumer protection agency with some real teeth in it, rather than some watered-down weak bill that doesn't do much of anything to restrain Wall Street.

Taking the second one first, Obama can rescue his presidency in a big way if he decides that 2010 will be the Year Democrats Fought The Banks. The upwelling populism running rampant today may be the next big wave in politics. You can either get on board this wave, or be swamped by it. And, right now, it is largely unfocused, meaning that the time is ripe to pick a few issues where the Wall Street bankers howl. Forcing Republicans to defend Big Banking would be the absolute best thing Democrats could do right now to improve their electability later this year.

There are many facets to this fight. The White House was quoted recently as supporting the creation of a very strong Consumer Financial Protection Agency, which is certainly one battleground worth making an appearance on.

But there are others, as well. I've written before about the efforts to return banking to the rules which governed them from the Great Depression to 1999 (the Glass-Steagall Act), which not only would be seen as directly taking on Wall Street, but also the whole culture of "too big to fail" as well. And, as an added benefit, it is a simple bill -- the entire text is a page and half long. This is a benefit because it is much, much harder -- virtually impossible, in fact -- for the bank lobbyists to quietly change a word or phrase here or there which results in gigantic loopholes (as is common on almost every other big, complicated finance bill which makes its way through Congress).

The Populist Caucus just sent a letter to President Obama which suggests a third way to join this fight -- by imposing a tax on stock trades. After exempting all the ways middle Americans normally use in stock trading (retirement accounts, education savings accounts, health savings accounts, mutual funds, the first $100,000 in transactions), this bill would put a 0.25% tax on all other trading. One-quarter of one percent seems like a fair price for Wall Street to pay, especially since the bill is named the "Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Act" and would raise an estimated $150 billion annually.

Any of these ideas (and plenty of other good ideas kicking around in committees) would cause Wall Street to howl. But that sound would be lost in the windstorm of hatred which is about to be unleashed as Wall Street announces their bonuses in the next few days.

This is going to be enormous in this year's elections. Obama is already seen by many as helping out Wall Street whenever it asks, and doing virtually nothing for Main Street. Whether that image is correct or not is immaterial -- because it has already taken hold in the electorate. Obama needs to counteract this impression, and if he misses the chance to do so in his upcoming speech, he may not get another chance at it. Meaning Obama picking a big, ugly fight with Wall Street is exactly what he needs right now. And really, any fight will do, as long as Wall Street is seen as Obama's opponent.

The other fight the White House seems to be signaling will take place this year is on letting gay people openly serve in the United States military, by overturning Bill Clinton's "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" (DADT) policy. This would heal an enormous amount of the disillusionment felt towards Obama not just from the gay rights crowd, but across his entire political base. Every time Obama fails to speak out about some issue he said he'd fight for during the campaign (gay rights is one, but certainly not the only one), every time Obama doesn't personally get involved, and (most especially) every time Obama says "be patient, we'll get to it" on some issue... he loses a little bit more of his base support.

Getting these people back, and getting them enthusiastic about the president again, is going to require a big fight, where Obama himself is seen as leading the charge. Don't Ask/Don't Tell is a risky fight to pick, I will admit, but that is the nature of hot-button political issues. And it will be a lot easier to repeal DADT then it would be to tackle gay marriage.

There is risk involved, as there are many (many Democrats included) who simply do not agree with any movement towards more gay rights. Gay marriage didn't win on the ballot in California -- one of the most liberal states in the Union. But allowing gays to serve openly is less contentious to some degree, and Obama can make a great case for "We didn't rush into this, we took the time to get the military themselves on board, and now we are ready to move forward." In other words, when he said "trust me, we'll get to it," that he was speaking the truth.

It would be a bit of political jiu-jitsu as well, where your opponent's strength is used against him. Republicans could be pretty much counted on to go apoplectic over the issue, and when Republicans go apoplectic, they usually go too far when they speak. Bigotry isn't a great way to get elected any more, in other words, but Republicans haven't quite figured that out yet. Because they would be defending a law which clearly creates "second class citizenship" for some. Not being allowed to serve your country in the military means, by definition, that you are less than a full citizen. And, marriage laws aside, that doesn't seem like a great position to defend politically.

Plus, in a further display of jiu-jitsu, this would turn the tables on a favorite Republican tactic -- because the Republicans would have to line up against the Pentagon's budget in a time of war. Think about the delicious irony of that for a moment. All the hysterical talk of "treason" and "traitor" and "not supporting the troops" and "during wartime" and all the rest of it, over the past few decades. There is an absolute gold mine of quotes to use against Republicans who vote against the Pentagon's budget, if the Democrats would only mine it. Or even, for Pete's sake, scratch the surface a bit.

In any case, while the first two flags up the flagpole (as it were) are interesting ones, and while there will likely be quite a few of these hoisted in the next few weeks as the White House decides exactly what will be in the State Of The Union address, the basic fact is that Barack Obama needs to redefine himself in the public's eyes. He needs to "come out swinging" on something, where he personally invests his own political capital towards getting something done for the better. He can regenerate at least some of the lost enthusiasm in his Democratic base, and perhaps recapture some of the Independents he has lost as well, by picking a few good political fights.

Over the next few weeks, we'll be able to see which fights Obama is considering for next year. So join with me in watching those flagpoles, to see what gets run up them. Because if you watch closely, you likely won't be surprised at anything Obama says when he actually gives his State Of The Union early next month.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant