Positive and Optimistic...
What I see with the new edition is WotC looking at Pathfinder/Paizo and realizing that they made a huge mistake in assuming that brand name loyalty would let them do whatever they wanted with the D&D name.
They have a huge job ahead of them. They have to re-assert their strength by putting out a product that not only keeps the new core of fanboys but re-establishes contact with the legions of players of earlier editions. (for lack of a better term grognards.)
The real trick is uniting the grognards; while 1st & 2nd edition D&D were quick and smooth (wait for it) there was a lack of solid rules when it came to certain situations and the DM as arbitrator left huge swings in rules decisions by DM style and experience. 3.X got rid of a lot of this by putting more rules/mechanics in the system and empowering the player. Which slowed the game considerably and made rules lawyering a legitimate occupation for players at the table. These are very diverse groups, even more so than the new 4e versus 3.X/Pathfinder camps (no really).
So why am I optimistic? For the following:
1) No saving throws. Everything is based strictly on Stats. This is good, why, because it means that a thoughtful DM and good mechanics will eliminate the "dump" stat. Do you really want to have a 3 charisma if all of your social reactions will be modified by it?
2) The commitment to listen to the fans. Okay, design by committee is never a really great idea, but in the past WotC has taken the approach of, we listen to the players even while having a set in stone concept of game design. This may slow the creation process, but hopefully the actually listen to the suggestions and implement them.
3) Revamping the magic system. The designers have already admitted that everyone having exactly the same abilities with different names doesn't really work. It's balanced yes, but bland. I'm not sure where they are going with this yet, but anything is better than the current system. (Although the decision to keep rituals is a definite plus.)
4) Staying with ability stats. This is probably the most iconic thing that makes D&D, D&D. For those that wanted to play a strict skills based system, please, there are other games that use these systems, go play them.
Concerns -
1) Races - I am a "purest" - the inclusion of the Tiefling in 4e made my stomach turn. I'm not against their inclusion, but make them an optional race. I've stated elsewhere make the core list small and then have a racial/player "splat" be your first big supplement, and really go nuts, include every variant, idea and wish you can stuff in it. Tieflings, giants, intelligent squirrels, whatever.
2) Classes - Again, while I love the original set of classes from 1e, I liked that 2e broke it into four 4 with subsets. While I think they could have been a little better arranged, a re-direction in that area may prove helpful and again, load up on the options with a splat. /P.S. - Fix the cleric, the idea of a straight adventuring priest is okay, but the idea of a hospitilar is better - maybe make the cleric and paladin part of the same class with the cleric focused on magic and the paladin focused on battle./ And speaking of paladins.
3) The Paladin - Okay, I love this class, however, it is ALWAYS the core of controversy. If the designers cannot figure out a way to fix this class so that it isn't either broken, hobbled or creates DM/player paradox/no-win situations... scrap it. (wow, that hurt more than I thought it would)
Mike has always been somewhat of a mystery to me. He really cares about the hobby but has some really out there ideas about how to make it viable. Monte is a mechanics machine and an excellent designer, but has a tendency to make the mage the center of attention. Hopefully there is a bright star somewhere in the design team that can balance these two during the process, if so... We might be on the brink of something beautiful.
I'm am optimistic about the next version, it can't be worse than the last one.... It just can't.