About That Clear "Center-Right" Mandate

Plenty of folks have already noted the absurdity of pundits and politicians in 2004 declaring that Bush's narrow victory gave him a "mandate" while now in 2008 they're saying that Obama's much more significant victory means he needs to govern in a centrist or even "center-right" fashion. This site alone has [1] a wealth [2] of posts on what Obama's victory really means [3] and where [4] to go from here [5].
.
Elsewhere, Dan Froomkin [6] put it nicely:

I must admit I am fascinated by the already congealed inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom that Obama shouldn't govern too radically. (I must have read two dozen variations on that this morning already.) What, exactly, are my colleagues saying he shouldn't do? It seems to me that many of the things they consider "too radical" are a) things he promised in the campaign and b) things the public overwhelmingly supports.

Let's go to the video evidence, kindly provided by Think Progress [7]:
:

David Sirota [8] posted a similar video roundup recently, among his many posts on the subject. And it appears Nancy Pelosi [9] also can't pass up on this action.

There's tactical value, of course, in peacemaking rhetoric, and also in genuine bipartisanship within the reality-based community if it helps good policies be enacted. But it's silly to pretend that wisdom is always achieved by splitting the middle, especially given the dire consequences of the previously reigning ideology and the public referendum on it we've just had. It's funny how Conventional Beltway Wisdom solidifies like this, no matter how obviously off-base it is, no matter what public opinion or the votes say [10], no matter how disastrous the approach of the preceding administration has been. However, since this off-key chorus will continue always and forever [11], it's definitely time to discuss the best agenda for an Obama administration, but also essential to make him enact it [12].

(H/T to Mike Finnigan [13] for the video link.)