Adding to what Lee wrote below, along with some of the comment discussions today, it's important to clarify that ideology is meant to inform policy, while only blind ideologues allow it to entirely dictate policy. For example, the Bush administration agenda has been almost entirely dictated by neoconservative and far-right ideology, at the all-too-familiar expense of reasonable and rational policies.
In stark contrast to the Bushies, the Obama agenda is influenced by ideology to be sure, but it isn't the last word on setting the agenda. And if the end result is largely a liberal agenda, it's liberal partly because Obama is liberal, but mostly because the best solutions happen to be liberal ones. In other words, the Obama agenda is liberal -- which is great -- but it's not necessarily ideological.
A strong illustration of the difference between ideology and policy is the abortion issue. Far-right ideology dictates that the life of the zygote/embryo/fetus be saved no matter what. Liberal ideology dictates that pregnant mothers have the right to make the final -- and private -- decision about the life of her zygote/embryo/fetus. The liberally-informed (but not dictated) pragmatic solution is to pursue a policy in which there's an overall reduction in abortions, while preserving a woman's right to choose. This happens to be the president-elect's position.
So if we look at the broader Obama narrative so far, we see a push towards a liberal agenda irrespective of whether he's appointing liberals, progressives, conservatives or miscellaneous. However, the agenda isn't pumped through an ideological filter.
And finally, to circle back to my on-going 'The Tide Is Turning' theme: tides don't change instantly. If they did, lots of people on beaches around the world would probably drown. Or put another way: this.
And... discuss.