I wish Chris Bowers was right that the Blue Dogs only wield power because a Republican holds the White House, but I don't think recent congressional history bears him out. Democrats had a pretty large congressional majority in the first two years of Clinton's administration, but the Blue Dogs found it all too easy to obstruct Democratic initiatives and push their priorities into bills. Among the more damaging chapters in the Clinton health care fight was Jim Cooper's construction of what amounted to a Blue Dog alternative bill -- complete with a bunch of Blue Dog cosponsors and corporate backers -- which was then used by the Republicans to help kill Clinton's initiative. Indeed, as the Democratic majority expands, you're likely to see more, rather than less, of this kind of pressure. After all, Democrats already hold Northern California. What they're trying to do is expand into North Carolina. But the folks who get elected in North Carolina are rather more conservative than the folks who get elected in Northern California, and they're rather more reliant on strong corporate funding to retain their seats. Which is why many of them end up as Blue Dogs. Take Larry Kissell in the Eighth District. The four issue tabs on his page are, in order, "National Security, Less Government, Lower Taxes, Real Family Values." I'll go on a limb here and say he might not be the most reliable vote for social democracy. And you're going to see a similar dynamic in the Interior West. A bigger majority always and everywhere means a more fractious coalition, and it means the leadership has to pay attention to retaining marginal seats. You get more votes, but less coherence. We may find that the Blue Dogs have just begun to bark.