There is no doubt this historic moment in American politics belongs to one American politician in particular. But you don't have to be Barack Obama to take advantage of his moment.

That's a lesson a lot of people in public life are learning or ought to be learning — right now. For anyone active in our national arena who is interested in change, this is the time.

Among those who are paying attention are two old vets of the reform wars of the past: Sens. John McCain and Russ Feingold. Yes, that would be the Arizona Republican who finished second in the presidential election and the Wisconsin Democrat who, having flirted with a long-shot bid for his party's nomination, opted out early.

Back in the 1990s, these two cooked up the most successful bipartisan effort at curtailing money's role in national politics since the Watergate era. And they got it through Congress. President Bush, goaded by the Enron scandal, signed it into law in 2002. This achievement, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act or BICRA, has been through a wringer in the courts, but what remains is still meaningful.

Now McCain and Feingold want to get the band back together and take it on the road, targeting an element of our political system nearly as ingrained as "pay for play" giving to campaigns. Their latest bete noire is earmarking, which allows individual members of Congress to steer funding to pet projects in their home states and districts. It has long been the lubricant for spending measures great and small, held especially dear by members of the Appropriations Committee in each chamber.

Is the elimination of earmarks a major item on the Obama agenda? Probably not. He tended to downplay the role of earmarks in the budget during his debates with McCain this fall. But McCain and Feingold don't absolutely need a boost from the president-elect to achieve their mission. They have succeeded before without White House help, and in certain respects they may be better off without it.

But this is the time for McCain and Feingold and a raft of other reformers to press their case, not as Obama acolytes or emissaries but as people who share his sense of timing.

What's important about the Obama moment is that it does not entirely depend on Obama himself. He is Time magazine's "Person of the Year" not because he personally made this historic moment happen but because he saw it coming. His name is on the era not as inventor or creator but as claimant and principal beneficiary.

So in this brief interlude of fluidity, many things are possible. A specific change in law, in policy or in attitude may or may not be part of the Obama agenda, the Democratic agenda or the liberal agenda. It can be as bipartisan as earmarking, or as nonpartisan as eliminating the power of governors — all governors — to appoint new senators.

That last idea is in bloom thanks to the rank corruption detailed in transcripts made in the office of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. His fate remains unclear, but suddenly the spotlight is on governors who solicit bids like auctioneers from a chorus of aspiring senators. All at once, the whole country knows what pay to play is. And that's a godsend to every reformer looking at every aspect of political commercialism.

How much of this spreading reformist zeal can Mr. Obama take credit for? His own credentials as a good guy are far from pristine. His ties to Blagojevich and other Chicagoans, as well as his time among the fallen angels of Springfield and Washington, mark him as a man of artful compromise.

But the degree of purity in the president-elect is beside the point, because he is less a cause than an emblem, a model and a point man. The forces that brought him to the pinnacle of our power system in this moment are broad and deep in the electorate as a whole, and they have implications beyond him.

In issuing his pivotal endorsement of Obama in October, former Secretary of State Colin Powell called him "a transformational figure." He saw this young man from Illinois as being in tune with times of transition in the nation and the world. He spoke of his capacity. All of this rang true.

But if Obama matters because he is in tune with the times, then it is ultimately the times that matter most. Yes, this slender young fellow from so many different backgrounds and worlds has seized the moment and made it his own. But others can do so as well.

It's hard to feel good about losing an election, any time or any place. But congressional Democrats can count themselves lucky to have lost two votes held this month.

The first came in Georgia, where Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss easily won a Dec. 2 runoff against upstart challenger Jim Martin. A loss is never fun, but it may have been the best thing that could have happened to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the rest of the Senate Democrats going into the 111th Congress.

The sequel came four days later in New Orleans, where Republican unknown Anh "Joseph" Cao upended veteran Rep. William Jefferson, the nine-term Democrat. Jefferson became famous for having a freezer that yielded up $90,000 in cash when the FBI dropped in with a warrant.

The Chambliss victory was expected; the Cao upset anything but. Republicans, hard up for good news of late, delighted in both wins. But Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill could also reflect on the results with a sense of relief.

Why? Well, it's pretty obvious with Jefferson. Since the FBI search in August 2005, Jefferson has been the most glaring example of ethical vulnerability in the Democratic caucus. It took the federal government nearly two years to issue indictments against him, building a case by prosecuting associates first. Nonetheless, for 40 months, Jefferson's problems have been mentioned regularly alongside those of fallen Republicans.

Even before the indictments, Democratic leaders booted Jefferson from the Ways and Means Committee, ignoring objections from the Congressional Black Caucus. But further discipline was suspended pending a trial that has yet to take place. For Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Jefferson dilemma and the internal tensions it caused have now been laid to rest. Two years from now, the New Orleans seat can presumably be recaptured by another Democrat.

Seeing a Democratic silver lining in the Chambliss victory is more difficult, yet this outcome should help Reid and his leadership team in both the short term and the long.

The key point here is that Chambliss' re-election ends any hope of the Democrats' pushing their new Senate majority to 60 votes, or three-fifths of the Senate. That is the supermajority required to invoke cloture, cut off debate and proceed to a vote on anything important. In theory, it means real control of the chamber, comparable to what Democrats have in the House, where simple majority rules.

So don't the Democrats want 60? Of course they do; it's been their goal throughout the campaign. But as it stands now, they may be better off falling just short.

Reason 1: Less pressure to seat Al Franken. Reid and others have acknowledged that the Senate itself may determine a winner in Minnesota, the one Senate race still unresolved. The entire state has been recounted by hand, and incumbent Republican Norm Coleman leads by fewer than 200 votes. The state canvassing board will meet Dec. 16 to consider challenges to thousands of ballots. It is even possible that the outcome will be determined by a coin toss.

Should the state call Coleman the winner, Democratic challenger Franken will surely go to court over ballots that were lost and absentee ballots that were disallowed. If he does not get satisfaction in timely fashion, he may well appeal to the Senate itself. The chamber has acted to resolve such cases before, but with ugly consequences. You could forget about any prospect of bipartisan cooperation, and the effect on Democratic fortunes in Minnesota would most likely be equally lethal.

Still, if Chambliss had lost and a victory for Franken was all Reid & Co. needed to grasp the holy grail, the temptation to risk the fallout and press for 60 might have been too much.

Reason 2: Having a nominal 60 may prove to be more burden than boon. Having 60 senators at your party's weekly policy lunch is no guarantee of that many votes on the floor for any given cloture motion. Two of the senators being counted toward that number are not even formally Democrats: Bernard Sanders of Vermont calls himself an independent, and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut calls himself an independent Democrat (having won re-election in 2006 as an independent after losing the Democratic primary).

On most issues, Sanders is well to the left of the party mainstream. On a crucial few, Lieberman is to the right. Either could bail out on a critical cloture petition. It is entirely possible that Georgia's Jim Martin and Minnesota's Al Franken, if part of the 60, would have proven highly independent, too.

That's not even to mention all the other mavericks and individualists on Reid's roster, from Arkansas centrists Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln to Great Lakes liberals such as Russell Feingold of Wisconsin and Sherrod Brown of Ohio.

The pressure to hold every last one of these Democrats in line would be far greater if the world saw Reid as having 60 votes in his pocket. It would influence House deliberations and make House chairmen all the more aggressive. Think how weary they are of being told to water down their bills so as to accommodate the Senate and forestall Republican filibusters.

Being south of 60 gives Reid a little more realistic task. In fact, getting there on some issues may be easier if the majority party needs a little help from the minority in the process. If the Democrats have to come shopping for their last few cloture votes, they are going to be far friendlier and more collaborative. They are going to keep lines of communication open to the last remnant of Republican moderates. And that means Reid is more likely to succeed.

Reason 3: Better to keep aiming higher in 2010. If Senate Democrats have 60 votes right now, they begin the next Senate election cycle psychologically on defense. Having seized the heights, they are exposed. But if the supposed magic of 60 is still a ways away, the prize is still out there to be won. Better to remain in the role of the hunter in 2010, when the GOP will once again have more seats to defend (six in states won by Barack Obama) and more incumbents ripe for retirement.

All in all, under the current circumstances, the dream of 60 is probably more useful as a dream deferred.

The national security team that stood on stage with President-elect Obama this week was all about experience and expertise and, oh yes, politics.

In fact, it's hard to recall a newly elected president who has been able to assemble so much of his Cabinet so quickly, knowing each is politically prepared for the job at hand.

That's one big reason Washington expects this team to be confirmed by the Senate with almost uniform swiftness and ease.

Start with Hillary Clinton, whose ascent to the most visible and prestigious post in the Cabinet has been the biggest story of the month since Election Day. The office of secretary of state has traditionally been a perch for peacocks of one kind or another (William Jennings Bryan in 1912, Henry Kissinger in 1973, Alexander Haig in 1981, James A. Baker III in 1989), but the job is different since the terrorist attacks of 2001.

Now the top diplomat is introduced as a member of the president's "national security team," a nod to the darker portents of foreign affairs in our time.

Yet, State remains the crown jewel in the president's array of appointments, and it seemed appropriate for the woman who fully expected to be moving into the Oval Office herself in January 2009. No prize could be consolation for what she has been denied, of course. But the president-elect decided that having her on board is the best way to harness her star power and prevent her becoming an independent power base outside the administration.

Anyone who remembers the vituperation directed at Hillary Clinton in the past 15 years must marvel now at the reaction to her nomination — remarkably favorable in both parties, or at least within the mainstream of each. There will be resistance from the farther right and left elements, especially in the blogosphere, but neither has much representation on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Keep an eye on Democrats on the panel who have long opposed the war in Iraq (Russell Feingold, James Webb), who will want to be assured this is the Hillary Clinton of the campaign trail in 2008 and not the one who voted for the war in 2002. But do not be surprised if the committee winds up endorsing her nomination with little or no dissent.

More resistance and more questioning await Eric Holder, the former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia who is poised to become the first African-American attorney general. Holder, too, was introduced as part of the "national security team," which pulls him in among the huddle of officials under the cloak of national emergency. But that is a shelter he is not likely to need.

Holder is a target because in the closing days of the Clinton administration, when he served as deputy attorney general, he signed off on the pardon of Marc Rich, a fugitive investor who fled charges of fraud and income tax evasion. Accounts of Holder's complicity in the controversial pardon differ, and a congressional committee in 2002 argued that Holder had a "significant impact" in the pardon process. But an investigation of the entire matter by a federal grand jury concluded there had been no criminal wrongdoing.

The Rich case will be vetted anew in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Holder, and there may be several votes against his confirmation. But what is known about the case at this point will not be a substantial obstacle; and even if it were, we should recall that John Ashcroft's nomination for the same job survived the opposition of 42 senators in 2001.

At least as likely to be confirmed is Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, the nominee at Homeland Security. This Democrat rose to prominence in a conservative red state on the Mexican border. No one can be prepared for everything in the world of terrorism, hurricanes and immigration crisis, but Napolitano will make a strong case for being as ready as anyone.

Rounding out the "national security team" members who must win Senate confirmation is Susan Rice, the Obama adviser on foreign affairs who, like the current secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, came to government from academia. Susan Rice has been around the block in the National Security Agency and State Department under President Clinton, rising as far as deputy secretary.

In her new role as permanent representative to the United Nations, Rice may at first be more visible internationally than at home. But that can change. And in a regime far less at odds with the U.N. than the Bush administration, a greater role for the U.N. ambassador may be expected. In any event, any flak Rice faces in Senate confirmation will most likely come from the chamber's hard-core U.N. critics, a subgroup diminished by recent retirements and election results.

Two other members of the Obama team will not need Senate confirmation. One is Robert Gates, who escapes the ritual because he is already serving as secretary of Defense. Surely there can be no safer confirmation strategy than appointing the incumbent.

But Gates is also pitch perfect politically because he combines continuity of management with a reassuring signal to military allies, domestic conservatives and "hard power Democrats" alike. Above all, he has shown himself a master of the internal politics of the Pentagon, wooing the uniformed services and defense civilians and contractors with impressive aplomb.

Complementing the Gates nomination is that of James Jones, the retired Marine general and former NATO commander whose skepticism about Iraq is well-known. He will have a critical role within the White House as national security adviser, and just as critical a role in maintaining the new president's credibility in the military and the intelligence community.

While not needing Senate confirmation, Jones has all the skills and sensitivity he would need to win it. Like Gates, he has not only survived in a highly contentious sphere but has won respect across the factions.

Add to these names the economic "dream team" announced last week and the coming nominations for Health and Human Services (Tom Daschle) and Commerce (Bill Richardson) and you have a Cabinet composed of skilled political operators and holders of high office. Daschle was the Democratic leader in the Senate for a decade, and Richardson served in Congress and the Clinton Cabinet for two decades before becoming governor of New Mexico in 2002.

The same could be said of the first "presidential" appointment, Joe Biden, who brings to the vice presidency no less than 36 years in the Senate, including stints as chairman of Justice and Foreign Relations, as well as the scars of two presidential campaigns.

Nearly all the stars in the new Obama firmament will be substantially older than their boss and will have spent far more time in Washington. Their shared value is not just time on the job but the instinct and savvy of the political survivor. These are men and women who have been, as soldiers say, bloodied. And they are back for more.