This is a whole new deal. Democrats at the helms of both houses.

What's more, an ample majority in the House means a few outliers won't impede progressive action.

The Senate "majority," though, is a delicate thing. 49-49, with two independents who — we hear — will sit with the donkey caucus. With Dick Cheney waiting in the wings to break ties.

Clearly, the Senate needs bold leadership. As I see it, there is one person there who has stood on the right, and reality-based, side of every important issue. And so I wrote him this note:

Dear Senator Feingold,

I'm a lifelong Democrat who is cheered by this week's election.

It is a great relief to see a counterbalance to a presidency gone awry.

But, given the fragile balance in the Senate, I'm concerned to see a party far less cohesive than the Republicans, who cynically (but usually successfully) place power over policy.

I write to you to encourage you to claim your rightful role as conscience and voice of the Democratic Party.

I come from a state with two fine Senators, but over the past year, while I've closely watched the national scene and written a snarky little blog, there are two politicians who continue to inspire me: you and Al Gore. I'm part of a growing group of Democrats who dream of you two sharing the 2008 ticket.

In the meantime, though, I can't see who else but you can be the passionate and pragmatic heart of the new Senate.

Perhaps the insider politics are all set, and there is no opportunity for you to claim such a leadership role. But the party and nation would be much the better if you could and would.

I'm reminded of George Harrison's intro to a live performance by the already world-famous Beatles: "This song is called 'Yesterday,' and so for Paul McCartney of Liverpool, opportunity knocks!"

In the meantime, rumors abound of a Feingold presidential run. With or without Gore, he'd be a great pick for the '08 ticket.

However it all plays out, I'm hoping this sea change means the junior Senator from Wisconsin will now be able to play a much greater role in American politics.

If you haven't followed him closely before, this is what I'm talking about, politics without the "politics":

I welcome President Bush's decision to accept Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s resignation. If it were up to me he would have been gone a long time ago. But Secretary Rumsfeld's departure is only a small step in fixing the larger problem that stems from the President's failed Iraq policy. The President has continually refused to change our current approach in Iraq despite a growing number of policymakers and experts, including many Republicans, advocating for a change of course. And the President has refused to acknowledge the devastating consequences of an indefinite military presence in Iraq. As I have argued for over a year, a timetable for the redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq will help pressure the Iraqis to get their political house in order and will help the U.S. military refocus on defeating global terrorist networks.