I'll join in the chorus lambasting the "blue dog" Democrats for making it part of their policy platform to bravely ignore the interests and needs of low income voters, with this week's example being their principled desire to let lots of people lose their homes. As Matt says, it's another case where the "Blue Dogs are voting their donors rather than their districts." But it's also a case where they're voting their reputations rather than their districts. The Blue Dogs certainly appear to think that a reputation for centrism and independence is an electoral boon in their home electorates, and they get that reputation, in the media, by repeatedly breaking with the Democratic Party on things like Social Security, the Bankruptcy Bill, etc, etc. You saw it with Harold Ford Jr., who got lots of loving coverage as a new type of Democrat who possibly was fit for Tennessee, despite the fact that the sort of economic conservatism Ford is known for doesn't actually appear to be some fond desire of Tennesseans.
In any case, this gets back to the media's weird definition of "centrism, which is not "holding opinions similar to that of a majority or plurality of the American people," but "holding opinions similar to that of The Washington Post editorial board, and routinely breaking with the Democratic Party on high profile issues."
