Not really. We had divided government in most of Clinton's administration; meaning Congress differed not just by party but ideologically from Clinton most of the time and produced more bills that he would be inclined to veto. Not to mention that the Democratic Party is more fragmented than the Republicans and it's hard to produce many Democratic bills where every Democrat is in on it.

On the other hand, Republicans don't tend to question authority, especially during the Bush administration. Bush has had a unified government all throughout his entire presidency up until this point. He hasn't had to veto anything because the Republican leadership in Congress were rubber-stampers for the executive at unprecedented levels. Really the only Republican I know of that actually votes ideologically instead of on the Party line is Congressman Ron Paul (many times he's the only dissenting voice in the Republican Party), and he's basically libertarian.

So, if this Democratic leadership can (key word can) produce something like an Iraq War timetable or universal health care, Bush will use his veto powers.

Not to mention Clinton at least generally operated on the consensus of the American people. I can understand sometimes doing something that may be unpopular, but President Bush has been very arrogant on things that are really stupid and the vast majority of Americans are against (such as selling our ports to Dubai, or now his Iraq War plans).