I'm not worried about over-reach.  I'm worried about the agenda being slowed by two things:

First, tension between the conservative Democrats who can't vote with the liberals 100% of the time and the liberals who can't stray too far to the center or they risk a primary challenge.  Having activists demanding a purist liberal agenda won't be helpful.

Second, revenge.  Much of the activist base is anxiously awaiting the opportunity to kick Joe Lieberman to the curb for supporting McCain.  Many want to pursue investigations of the Bush administration on a variety of issues.

There is always a risk when taking an action, which may be why our cowardly dem's failed to stop Bush's excesses.  We need a filibuster proof congress, but they didn't, they are willing to filibuster, but our dem's either couldn't get it together, or they preferred letting Bush get his way (at our expense, and a lot of everyone else's too) thinking this would lead to the future win.

Well, now we're close to it, and yes, the fear is they'll do little or nothing, or the least, some compromise that won't work.  

This is why I want Hillary in some position of power in the Senate. She came out with the hard stuff during the primary and if she'd won, we all would have known exactly what she'd try to accomplish and if it fell short, it would not be for lack of trying.

I want Barack to be the same, to set the bar very high and if congress is too cowardly to make the changes that will make a difference, show where the problems lie.  

Underreaching is my biggest fear. After all, even with a landslide win the leadership of the Congress is going to be the same leadership we have had since 2002-2004: Pelosi, Emmanuel, Reid, Hoyer; political creatures formed in the 80s under Reagan's tide, and during the DLC infested 90s.

They have proved to be a timid bunch that follows the beat of Broderism's drum and the Church of Beltway Centrism. So...it will really be up to Obama to set the agenda and force the timid Congressional leadership to act, but then again we know of Obama's cautiousness and his aversion to big change.

My guess is that the only way to get the progressive revolution we need will be guided by events: if the economy continues to deteriorate at a rapid pace, we may yet see a bold program from Obama. If the recession turns out to be a mild one, I highly doubt we will be seeing anything dramatic coming from either the WH or Congress.

Don't miss David Sirota's commentary at OpenLeft.com, which suggests that voters and their new Senators and Representatives will be demanding major shifts away from Regan economics -- thanks to McCain's demonization of the Democrats' economic policies. As Sirota perceives it, now more voters perceive this election as between 'McCain/Reganomics' and 'Obama/Progressive Economics' and they will expect a change when Obama and the new congress are elected.

Sirota argues that citizens will be pressing the new Obama administration to take a stronger,  more progressive economic position than Obama had initially intended. (Good!)

Link to the Sirota essay is at http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?dia ryId=9358
 

"There's real danger that a newly elected President Obama will face harsh criticism from a political press that expects centrism ..."

Earth to Josh: Obama IS a centrist, and a very cautious one at that. What policy or approach has he championed that is anywhere close to radical or game changing? I mean other than ending partisanship in DC and all that? Have you read his health care proposal, or is plan to get out of Iraq? Are you already preparing us for the inevitable disillusionment when we all discover that most people in the establisment, including Congress and the Obama administration, are really "establishment" and not interested in fundamental change?

Obama, because of the vagueness of his rhetoric, has managed to give everyone the idea that THEIR personal idea of change is what he has in mind. When in fact he is a solid mainstream Democrat who has pledged to work with the other side in crafting compromise policy. All to his credit, imo.

This came out of the Heritage Foundation or some other GOP joke shop a few days ago and now their mewling media mouthpieces are rolling it out, throwing it against the wall, and waiting to see if it sticks. The Crypt Keeper and Caribou Barbie will ride it all week.

The Democrats, fortunately, have the precedent of Clinton's first two years to serve as a cautionary tale.  I don't think the Dems are going to be as unruly or undisciplined as some suspect because they understand the GOP can (and almost certainly will) stage a counter attack.

Obama has three other advantages.  First, he's steadier than Clinton and not an easy target.  The meme that many voters didn't trust Clinton got started before he won the '92 election (and was based in some aspects of personality and history which Obama doesn't share).

Second, Clinton won a 3-way race with 43%.  If Obama wins he'll definitely score over 50%.  That matters.  Even if he doesn't win in a blowout and take all of the swing states, it will still be the case that a majority of the electorate voted for him once (and he'd only be the second Dem who could say that in 40 years, btw).

Third, the Dems got spanked in '94 because the Republican base was energized but the Democratic base wasn't.  I don't think that will be true in 2010.  The internet has changed political campaigning on the Democratic side.  Think many who support Obama are in it for the long haul.  

None of this is to diminish the talents and accomplishments of Pres. Clinton.  Just think Obama is in a much stronger position and would have some better cards to play.