The SoCons concern me greatly.  There's a possibility that the GOP may be able to exploit them.  There's a possibility that the SoCons may be able to come together as a political force within the Democratic party.  

It is also telling that the progressive things that Clinton did push are those things that caused the biggest backlash - gays in the military and health care reform.

But the issue of priorities makes it harder to deal right now with other items on the progressive wish list.  Imagine if, instead of the economy, President Obama's first order of business was card-check or the Freedom of Choice Act.  Salutary goals, but I'm confident it's the precise opposite of the tone he wants to set.  Recall that the result of Clinton's gays-in-the-military debacle was that he got savaged by the right for bringing it up and by the left for not getting it done.  No one wants to make that mistake again.

In the Senate, Russ Feingold comes to mind. Hillary Clinton is a maybe (but has been a much stronger maybe than Obama over the last 2 years). Ted Kennedy will probably not see another term.

I had some hopes for the House when Pelosi initially became Speaker, but was disheartened when Steny Hoyer assumed his leadership spot. The last 2 years show Nancy isn't in the progressive/liberal wing of the party. Conyers, in my opinion is definitely one, and possibly Charlie Rangel. I would've put Henry Waxman in the group years past, but any more I just don't know.

Specifically, the thesis seems to be that Bill Clinton made a mistake in projecting a moderate image after the 1994 electoral debacle. That his failure was in not delivering a progressive agenda.

My thesis is that Clinton erred by making his initial act in 1992 a signature "progressive" move -- lifting the ban on gays in the military -- and this allowed a rising Republican right to define him, at least among a sufficient number of voters to poison the rest of his Presidency.

Clinton's return to middle-roader (his position during the primary, but not immediately after election) grew out of his experience in trying to be a "progressive" in 1993.

Many moderates, and even conservatives, voted for Obama.  While I do think Obama is progressive on some fronts, he has no progressive mandate.  I would be weary of even using the term. The label actually does not play well with many, and may lead to needless opposition and criticism.  

Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.

TL was convinced that Bush was going to start the draft back in 2004; now I see it's all quiet on the liberal front, presumably because the "community service" aspect makes it "for a good cause"

The way to win on the gay rights issue is for our newly elected Congress to propose legislation that repeals DOMA and DADT, and changes IRS code and other applicable laws to support states' use of civil unions.  These changes should based on the need to accommodate contract structures in states that allow gay marriage or civil unions.  

As part of the process, Congress can set clear federal direction to support states that provide equal structures for gays and straights, from gay marriage to heterosexual civil unions (granted, these are not in existence yet, but they would help enormously to pull the rug from under the anti-gay marriage proponents).  This allows for a variety of state responses, appeases conservative demands for states' rights, and provides the framework for destabilizing our opponents anti-gay political actions.  Although different states can create different solutions, including the mean-spirited gay marriage bans, the federal government should reestablish our "full faith and credit" clause so all states would have to accept marriages/civil unions from other states that allow gays to marry/civil unionize.  Then let it sit for a while until it's clear that the states allowing gay marriage aren't falling apart, and in the meantime anyone married in the states that allow it have 100% of the rights and benefits afforded to married couples.  

Obama doesn't need to stick his neck out and make gay rights his issue, but the Democratic party absolutely does have to take a stand. Why?  Because if we don't, our opponents will continue to hammer us on this for the next hundred years while it's in limbo.  Gay Americans are not going to quit demanding equality, and the right wing will continue to take advantage of wedge issues like this.  The solution is for Congress to take it on because of the need to mitigate problems created by states regulating marriage in different ways, and with a clear goal of reaffirming the U.S. constitutionally guaranteed equality for all citizens.

Unlike Pres Clinton, Obama shouldn't be the point man on this.  Bill Clinton had to stand alone on the gays in the military issue.  He got kneecapped for it.  But Obama has surrogates, including strong congressional leaders.  And he has us, the wind as his back, millions of progressives who believe in the Constitution and in fairness to others.  We need to have a core group from both sides of Congress whose political careers can't be damaged by promoting equal rights.  Sen. Ted Kennedy is in an excellent position to take the lead (what a lasting tribute for him this could be by continuing in the Kennedy tradition of sponsoring key civil rights legislation) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi in the House (already maligned as a wild-eyed liberal by the right wing but frequently attacked by the left for not being progressive enough).  (Please add more suggestions in the comments below of leaders who could politically survive if they take a stand on this issue.)

Obama should reiterate his support for these sweeping changes based on what he's already stated, and the following:

1. Numerous states prevented interracial marriage at the time of his birth.  Traditional marriage, as it was for most of our country's history, negatively impacted people of different races.  Our country correctly made changes to "traditional marriage" to fix that inequality.  
   
2. Desegregation of the military had a huge positive effect on race relations, in spite of the naysayers claiming it would destroy morale and destabilize troop cohesion and readiness.  Repealing DADT will do the same.  Gays exist, they are in the military, many of them are heroes, DADT is dysfunctional, so change is needed.  CIC lays down the law, generals who refuse to implement it get fired.  Period.  
   
3. Today's marriage is not at all "traditional."  Marriage throughout history has meant no divorce, no interracial unions, arranged weddings between children and adult men, and polygamy.  The "protect traditional marriage" argument is baseless, and they're just being mean spirited and anti-American passing laws that take rights away from a minority.
   
4. Obama is all about finding solutions that represent shared values.  This solution allows states to define traditional marriage, but doesn't allow them to discriminate against a group of citizens.  Gays can always go to one of those liberal states to get married, and their home state will simply have to abide by traditional federal law requiring full faith and credit between states.  

Finally, anti-gay political action by the right wing and by churches is a huge fundraiser and a Get Out The Vote strategy.  The problem isn't that people of color tend to vote conservatively on social issues, the problem is that so many churches and religious leaders tell all their followers to vote against gay rights.  That's where we need to focus our energies, mitigating the anti-gay communication flow from powerful, political religious organizations to the electorate.  For that reason, Obama should make it clear that his Faith Based Initiative funding will not be granted to religious institutions that promote hatred, division and political changes resulting in loss of civil rights for any group of citizens.  

Because if we don't, our opponents will continue to hammer us on this for the next hundred years while it's in limbo.  Gay Americans are not going to quit demanding equality, and the right wing will continue to take advantage of wedge issues like this.