This isn't goodbye. It won't be for another two years. But upon hearing the news today that Barbara Boxer will not seek re-election in 2016, my immediate reaction was that she'll be sorely missed in the United States Senate.

But rather than go with a passive statement, today's title is uncharacteristically aggressive for me, because I'm not using the editorial "we" here (as I am often wont to do, especially on Fridays), but rather I am attempting to speak for millions of California voters who will all miss having Barbara Boxer represent us in the upper chamber of Congress. I'm speaking today (as I rarely attempt to do) for a lot of others, in saying we will indeed miss Senator Boxer two years from now, when she steps down.

Barbara Boxer was elected in 1992, along with Senator Dianne Feinstein (Feinstein's was a special election, Boxer was running for a full term), in what was known as the "Year of the Woman." But while I enthusiastically supported Boxer -- and have continued to do so -- I have far less goodwill towards Feinstein.

When entering a voting booth and pulling a lever (or de-hanging a chad, as it were) for a political candidate, voters are presented with choices (no matter the party affiliation) which range across a spectrum of that voter's enthusiasm. Sometimes you vote for a politician because you know that, on balance, you are going to support their actions more times than not. Such politicians disappoint, but fewer times than they gain approval. Jerry Brown would be a good example, for me personally, of such a politician (Barack Obama would fit, too, but I'm trying to keep these examples California-centric). I agree with most of what Brown does, but not everything. Sometimes, however, you vote for a politician knowing that she'll generally be awful, albeit a lot less awful than her opponent. Dianne Feinstein falls into this category for me (I disagree with most of her foreign policy positions -- to cite just one obvious reason). Only rarely do you get to vote for a politician that you can trust most of the time to vote in accordance with your own views. Nancy Pelosi would be a good example of such a politician, although I do not live in her House district. But only incredibly rarely do you get to enthusiastically vote for someone knowing that 99 times out of 100, she'll vote exactly how you would if you were sitting in her seat. Barbara Boxer is one of those rarest-of-the-rare politicians that I trust without reservation to do the right thing, almost every single time. That's the highest praise I can think of for any politician who represents me -- at any level of government.

I know I'm not alone in this, either. Millions of Californians agree with Boxer, and fully support everything she does in the Senate. Which is why she'll be greatly missed, two years from now.

Of course, this is all very big news in the Golden State, because it is quite likely that over the next two election cycles we will have two new senators. Dianne Feinstein is currently the oldest sitting member of the U.S. Senate, and will be 85 years old when the 2018 election is held, when her current term ends. Barbara Boxer was only the 13th oldest sitting senator, in comparison. Most political-watchers expect Feinstein to also announce her impending retirement at some point, rather than seeking another term. This, as I mentioned, is huge news here because we have had the same two senators since Bill Clinton's first presidential election year. If Feinstein does retire as expected, it will mean we'll have two wide-open Senate races within two years -- a political rarity for any state.

Boxer made her announcement at the earliest possible moment into the 2016 election cycle. She is to be commended for doing it this way, rather than playing some egotistical "will she or won't she run" game for the next year or so. She is putting her state and her party ahead of her own sense of self-importance, which is also an incredibly rare trait in any senator.

The big question now becomes who will take Boxer's place? I think I can confidently predict that both Boxer and Feinstein will be replaced by Democrats, which means that the Democratic senatorial primaries are going to be where the winners are actually decided. If we do get two open elections in 2016 and 2018, it will also likely mean whoever comes in second in the first contest will go on to win the second time around.

Three names have immediately popped up as likely contenders: Kamala Harris, currently California's attorney general; Gavin Newsom, currently lieutenant governor; and Antonio Villaraigosa, former mayor of Los Angeles (Jerry Brown's name is not on this list because most consider him too old to run, I should add, even though he'd win handily). Out of these three possibilities, I'd personally be happiest to see Newsom win a Senate seat, mostly because I admire his pioneering nature on such issues as marriage equality and marijuana legalization. Newsom was the San Francisco mayor who pushed gay marriage into the spotlight back in 2004, which was a very bold and risky thing to do at the time. He's also the only state-level politician in California (that I'm aware of, at least) who already says he'll support a recreational marijuana legalization ballot initiative, if it's written well. Getting out in front of such bending arcs of history and standing up for what's right is always admirable in any politician.

Nevertheless, I look forward to the upcoming primary season to see who else throws his or her hat into the ring to replace both Boxer and (assumably, two years later) Feinstein. California is the largest state in the Union, population-wise. Because of this, California's senators represent more people than anyone else in the Senate. It's an incredibly important and prestigious position for any Democrat to aspire to. For the first time in a quarter-century, California voters are going to get to pick not just one, but likely both senators who will represent them in Washington. That's an exciting prospect.

But this excitement is tinged, at least in Boxer's case, with a degree of sadness as well. We'll miss seeing our diminutive senator speak with righteousness and steel in her voice (Boxer is quite short, and occasionally uses a "Boxer box" to stand on, behind podiums built for taller folks -- which in no way diminishes her political presence, I might add). We'll miss the trust we have that at least one of our state's senators will vote in complete harmony with our own political views. Whichever Democrat does win the race to replace her will have to work very hard indeed to reach the high bar that Boxer has set. So while we will be closely following the contest between Democratic contenders for Boxer's seat, there will always be a note of wistfulness present.

Because I'm not the only one who feels this way about Boxer. A whole lot of Californians will miss having Senator Boxer looking out for our interests in the United States Senate. We've got two years before we have to say goodbye, but we're already sad at the prospect of having to do so. We'll miss you, Senator Boxer.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant