The hospitalization of Sen. John Fetterman for depression raises a host of questions. Of course our first reaction is to convey good wishes for a speedy recovery and acknowledge that mental health issues are as real as physical problems. Indeed, to appreciate the often-concealed suffering associated with such disease, one need only read the heart-stopping book, "Invisible Storm: A Soldier's Memoir of Politics" by Jason Kander, the former Missouri Secretary of State and U.S. Senate candidate who dropped out of a sure-win Kansas City mayoral race when he finally recognized that his depression and PTSD had made his life unbearable. Fortunately we are a far cry from Sen. Tom Eagleton's experience of being removed as George McGovern's vice presidential running mate in 1972 when it was discovered that he had gotten electroshock treatment for depression. (By the way, after several years of therapy, Kander seems to be doing pretty well.)

Beyond any sympathy or empathy one might feel for the Pennsylvania senator is his hospitalization's political impact. Aside from the fact that his constituents' needs are being temporarily unmet by him (though I am sure his staff is working 24/7), there is the issue of whether his absence imperils the majority's effectiveness in the Senate. After all, neither Fetterman nor his physicians can predict how long he will be away from Washington. The good news is that the Democrats have a two-vote edge, so his course of treatment does not deprive them of a majority. But life being as unpredictable as it is, the majority party is only one heartbeat away from an evenly split Senate. Although Vice President Kamala Harris could then cast a tie-breaking vote, that would depend on Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's being able to count on his full caucus (remember Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema?).