Among the nuances that get glossed over amid the fervor of this process is precisely what the campaign reveals and/or doesn't about the aspirants. The attributes voters admired in the previous general elections gave us George W. Bush, resulting in a series of policy decisions that at best leave the economy and our standing in the world in a shambles for whoever is elected to clean up. Nobody can deny that he was an effective campaigner.

In the current race Senator Clinton, too, is running a polished, effective campaign. She's got good people, effective fund-raisers, and reacts adeptly to adversity, having preserved plausible deniability when a viral smear linked back to her organization emerges.

The challenge is to help voters see that while Senator Obama is undeniably a politician, he uses politics as a means to demonstrably noble goals, which is why so many believe he will wield the power of the Presidency in pursuit of bettering the country.

Unfortunately the qualities we need in our next President are not simply those of the veteran campaigner; being effective in the race is neither sufficient, nor inherently synonymous with being worthy of our votes.

Senator Clinton is as aware of what's going on with progressive voters as the rest of us are, likely more so. Naturally she's disappointed and doing all she can to regain the spotlight and momentum in the fight for delegates. I was stunned to hear her in the New Hampshire debate claiming 35 years of experience yet finding fault with John Edwards when his patient bill of rights stalled in the House of Representatives despite being passed by the Senate. The two are same sort of "experience," working hard on something you believe in which flounders - and ultimately sometimes fails, as was the case with her laudable health care initiative while First Lady. Yes, that's experience, and doubtless Senator Clinton and Senator Edwards both learned from the process.

Ironically, every experienced Democrat persisting after Iowa has taken up Obama's message, each claiming to be an Agent of Change. Yet Senator Clinton, for example, has resorted to very old-school ad hominem sound bite politics as her inevitability has evaporated.

In fact, if all we needed in the White House could be summed up as "effective campaigner" she might be the best. What we need, however, is not somebody who smiles and orchestrates a slick, effective campaign, but rather a visionary capable of reversing the disenfranchisement of the citizens of this country while restoring the integrity of the office of the President.