Good article. It would seem that the Democrats that represent rural areas hold some power. Let's hope they use it wisely. This is a perfect example of why the Founding Fathers wanted a senate that would serve as a balance to the House in the first place. The House is overwhelmingly made up of people that represent the bigger cities and the more populated states. The Senate balances this out by having people that represent their entire state, and the more rural states have as much representation as the more populated ones.
Much has been made of the 60 vote filibuster proof Senate. I think it's a bit overblown. It's very difficult to get 60 people, even if they belong to the same party, to vote the same way when they represent different areas of the country. I don't see many senators that come from rural states voting for legislation that will devastate rural communities.
Even Dick Durbin from my state has criticized some of Obama's proposals that would negatively affect agriculture. Yes, he supported Obama and is one of the most liberal senators there is. Yes, most of the money and power in Illinois comes from the Chicago area. But Durbin understands that agriculture, as it is in most states, is a huge part of the Illinois economy, and that he represents the entire state, not just the cities. Don't think too highly of him, but I'll give him that.