Almost one year to the date of his inauguration comes perhaps the strongest rebuke of the Obama agenda we've seen thus far. A U.S. Senate seat that produced two of the most iconic Democrats in American history went to a little-known Republican in Massachusetts - one of the "Bluest" states in the union. Like the gubernatorial elections of New Jersey and Virginia, Tuesday's vote is ominous to liberals reading the tea leaves before November's election.

There are two main points to take away from Scott Brown's upset over Martha Coakley for Massachusetts' vacant senate seat. The first is that although Brown remains decidedly moderate on many issues, he was able to capture the support of a growing fiscal conservative backlash against the President and Congressional Democrats. Though Brown picked up endorsements from some in the Tea Party Movement, he's far from the fire-breathing Theo-Con some on the left painted him as. On the contrary, he's mostly pro-choice and believes that deciding whether to allow gay marriage is a decision best left to each individual state. 

As far as health-care, take this scathing quote from his Web site: "In Massachusetts, I support the 2006 healthcare law that was successful in expanding coverage..."

The second major point is that the race for "The People's Seat" was largely a race decided by independents, who lean Democrat in Massachusetts but don't pledge fealty to the party the way some liberals expected they would. According to a Gallup poll, only 35 percent of Massachusetts residents identify as Democrats, which falls more or less in line with the national average. However, 49 percent labeled themselves as Independents, (compared to about 35 percent nationally) and only 19 percent as Republicans, (compared to about 27 percent nationally). Though the poll found that Massachusetts independents usually voted for Democratic candidates, Gallup's analysis found that the "political environment is not necessarily rigidly Democrat, but instead one built on an underlying structure with a substantial independent component."

Barbara Boxer ought to read that last sentence very carefully. A December Public Policy Institute of California survey found that California's numbers mirror Massachusetts a lot closer than one would think. About 45 percent of California voters identify as Democrats, with 31 percent identifying as Republicans and 20 percent as independents. According to that same survey, about 39 percent of all Californians opposed the changes in the nation's health care system and only about 38 percent of Californians approve of the job Congress is doing.

Though comparisons to 1994's Republican takeover of Congress are a bit far-fetched, (this article does a good job of explaining why), Democrats have much to be worried about between now and November. Brown's victory represents a growing disenchantment the bailouts, health care and other Democratic policy positions. All Democrats have done since winning control the Executive and Legislative branches of the Federal government is prove their conservative detractors right. Maneuvers like refusing to televise the compromise amendments between the House and Senate versions of the health-care bill and then handing unions a sweetheart deal valued at around $60 billion don't exactly inspire confidence and win over skeptical voters straddling the fence.

From Boxer's seat in California to Dodd's former seat in Connecticut, Brown's win is a strong message to Democrats that there's no such thing as a safe seat anymore. Moreover, it's a sign that independent voters are aligning themselves to more conservative positions. If Republicans play their cards right, 2010 will be the year that fed-up voters go to the poll to tell Democratic incumbents they can "keep the change."