Although I would be happy if the Senate fixed the filibuster so it cannot be abused, I think it would be in the Democrat's best long-term interest to just eliminate it altogether. Even when the Democrats have the will to use the filibuster, it does not help them because, in general, the Republican's philosophy is that government shouldn't do anything.
I do agree, however, what some people have said that the minority party needs to have tools at their disposal to ensure that their concerns over any legislation are also addressed. However, the filibuster as a leverage tool to compromise only works if the majority party needs the government to function in order to gain politically.
The filibuster, as it stands, gives Republican's more leverage as the minority party precisely because they can stop everything and blame it all on the Democrats. Whereas, when the Democrats are in the minority, they still have more desire to keep the government functioning, than willingness to stop everything as leverage to compromise.
In other words, when Republicans use the filibuster the Democrats cannot afford to risk the government shutting down. However, when the Democrats use the filibuster, the Republicans can let them shut things down -- they get to stop the meddling government from doing anything, and still get to blame the Democrats.
In general, Democrats are elected to office in order to have government do what the voters want it to do for them. Republicans, in general, are elected to office in order to stop the government from doing what the voters don't want it to do. How can there be real, meaningful, compromise between doing something, and not doing something?
For Democrats to succeed, they have to win. For Republicans to succeed, they just have to not lose.
The filibuster ensures that the Democrats can't win, and the Republicans can't lose.
For additional comments on this issue see also: http://loneprogressive.newsvine.com/_news/2010/11/27/5535801-the-filibuster-has-to-be-eliminated