Unsurprising: Democrats lack votes to kill the filibuster.
I'm broadly pro-filibuster, but then I have an aversion to legislative activity, so that's hardly surprising. But whether or not you support it, I see little hope of changing it unless we get a long period--ten or so years--of single-party dominance. At this point, Democrats would be crazy to do this. They'd get a few months before they lose so many seats in the House that--even if they don't lose entirely--they won't have enough votes to do much.
And in exchange, they risk empowering a Republican Senate majority--if not in 2010 (which I think is very unlikely) then in 2012. It's absolutely true that Reagan and others had less popularity at this point in their presidency than Obama. Unfortunately for Obama, financial crises take a long time to recover from. The recession that ate away the popularity of Reagan was a classic monetary contraction that led to a boom as soon as Fed Chair Paul Volcker loosened his iron grip. There's a very good chance that in two years, Obama is still going to be trying to explain why unemployment is above 8% and GDP is kind of anemic. If that's the case, the Republicans will hold the house and the senate at the end of 2012.