Two reasons that Dems will need a bigger majority than they currently have even if they hold onto both houses (which they almost certainly will) and win the presidency (which they probably will) in order to get anything done.

One, obviously, is the GOP's filibuster power, which they have exploited mercilessly in this congress (despite not having yet been called out on it by either the media OR the Dems). Every extra Dem senate seat makes it that much harder for the GOP to filibuster. And with a number of SCOTUS resignations coming up, it will be essential to have as many senate seats as possible as Dems are not going to attempt the "nuclear option" (nor should they, for all sorts of obvious reasons).

And two, Dems aren't anywhere near as united in lockstep as Repubs are, and probably never will be (which is probably a good thing), so to get anything done in either house WITHIN their caucus, they will need bigger majorities (preferably, of course, with the addition of more progressives than Blue Dogs or DLCers). If you don't understand why, here are a few reasons: Salazar, Landrieu, both Nelsons, Carper, Lincoln, Hoyer, Emanuel, Dingell.

Also, a powerful congress would be better able to stand up to an unwise or out of control president, Dem OR Repub. Just because the next president will likely be a Dem doesn't mean that they will always act wisely or properly. Restoring the power of congress is the surest way to restore the system of checks and balances and thus the constitution, and having stronger Democratic (and hopefully progressive) congress is how to do that.

Thankfully, Dems appear to be well on track to increasing their leads in both houses, but especially and most importantly in the senate, where they may well pick up 3-7 seats (Dole, Warner, Coleman, Collins, Smith, Sununu, Voinovich) if not more. A 43-45 seat GOP would find it far harder to filibuster as effectively or regularly as the current one does (which, really, considering that Lieberman is basically a Repub, Johnson is still out, and Cheney gets to break ties, makes the GOP the actual majority party in terms of getting anything done).

Fine by me. All I can say is I wish Congress felt the same way.

Well, considering that congress has been doing exactly what it needs to do if we're ever to get to actual impeachment (albeit no as quickly and aggressively as most of us would like, myself included), I think that it's a bit premature to assume that we know what congress "feels", let alone that it's not what we want them to "feel".

Sure, they may well just be going through the motions to shut us up, but given that most people who are angry with Dems are angry at them for NOT giving a damn about us, I find this take to be somewhat strained. Or, they might be "serious" about oversight, but nevertheless unwilling to go all the way, in which case this might effectively be just going through the motions, for their consciences' sake as much as for us. But I just don't get the feeling that folks like Leahy, Conyers and Waxman are going to choke or give up once they finally hit that wall. Contempt citations are coming, the only questions being what kind, and how that will play out.

It's still way too premature to declare these Dems not serious about restoring the constitution and holding the administrtion accountable for its crimes, merely because they haven't yet mentioned (let alone attempted) impeachment or actually taken down one of the big guys (although, I would suggest that folks like Taylor, Griffin, Goodling et al are hardly low-level functionaries, and getting them to testify under oath is not exactly nothing).

We're still in the middle of this drama and there's yet much to come. To paraphrase Churchill, this is not yet the beginning of the end, but it's likely the end of the beginning. Somewhat past that, in fact, I suspect, some big developments likely to happen between now and October.