I don't think we're that far apart. I'm saying that Democrats need to keep in mind that the election wasn't about them. I think that the people would've happily elected a third-party majority in Congress if it simply promised to push back against Bush and the Republicans. That's what's broken that the "middle ground" wants fixed.

I think what's happened is that Americans came to the conclusion that the system of checks and balances had been severely hamstrung, if not outright destroyed, by the apparent monolithic partnership between Republicans in the Executive and Legislative branches. We've forced a new balance of power on the Republicans by playing the Democrats against them, which is what I think Olbermann was saying about "forcing a renegotiation". The Democratic mandate is to be an independent Congress, not a Democratic Congress.

Perhaps the well-oiled and disciplined machine that the GOP's developed over the last few decades finally proved to be a liability. It grew too powerful and tried to impose a national agenda on Republicans, and I think they finally grew tired of it. Democratic voters didn't give the House to Democrats, disaffected Republicans did that. We shouldn't forget that this election represents the opinion of Republicans as well as Democrats.

I think there's reason for optimism that the Democratic leadership won't lose sight of that. They seem to have gotten better at politics (obviously), and while a handful of usual-suspect firebrands are calling for Bush's head on a platter, the mainstream seems cognizant that it must walk a fine line. I think that Pelosi mentioning agenda items like the minimum wage is a way of signalling that Democrats won't be obsessed with investigations to the exclusion of all else. They have no choice but to honor their mandate to investigate, but they also understand that going crazy with it will not result in covering themselves with glory. I hope that's how it plays out.