A person can spend a lifetime digging in his heels against the military-energy-insurance-defense industrial complex and watch in disgust as that multi-headed dragon raises yet another pair of heads that signal its dominance will continue.

And I don’t like the calls for window dressing conformity against the Rightwing Noise Machine if that unity is spent in denial about the reality of the presidential race as it currently exists. One can be liberal, progressive and accomplish much with initiative and leadership instinct instead of mimicking the methods of the rightwing 24/7.

Americans could care less about polarity. What they want is a set of real answers to existing problems that they recognize. Right now, the American middle - the power that moves elections - is focused on two central points: the Iraq quagmire and the economic pinch. The quibble about MoveOn will not impact their choices at all.

Staying on message is important, for sure, but not always. There are times when Jane Hamsher’s point is important to recognize and her advice worth following, but there’s pre-conditions to that. A missing element right now is a Democratic candidate who can energize and inspire with a brief, easily understood message that offers a clear set of solutions and an exciting vision. Once we have that, then it becomes more important to avoid letting the RNM distract the public from that core thesis.

The race that’s shaping up is something completely different. Republicans have abandoned their much-touted principles entirely, in pursuit of any candidate with the best odds of winning (and Giuliani is that guy). We saw how well that worked for the Dems with John Kerry over Howard Dean. Some long for another to match the mythical Reagan. In the absence of the real thing, they’re considering Fred Thompson because the resume looks similar. But they might as well exhume Reagan’s corpse using that rationale, because bones don’t define the spirit within.

The Dems, on the other hand, now seem willling to vote mainly for nostalgia. The prosperity provided by the Technological Revolution that Bill Clinton rode is as replicable as the benefits of the Industrial Revolution was. Hillary’s prominence is based partly on that, partly on glass ceiling breaking and partly on the knowledge that the Clinton team will, when pushed, fight back.

And that latter fact is where Jane’s point is most apt. How can we expect any candidate to stand up and fight for us against rapacious corporations or external enemies if they can’t put up a decent fight against mealy-mouthed bribe-sucking pantywaist Republicans spewing their values BS while shredding the Constitution and skulking around toilet stalls?

There is no audacity to the hope being expressed by the Clinton candidacy. It’s Republican lite replicated for another tiresome electoral round. Gains on the margin after the worst president in history is squandering the opportunity we’re presented with. “Let’s settle for a little better” is not an inspirational rallying cry.

But no amount of message conformity can change that without a candidate who’s offering something so palpable that a majority can feel it. Obama? His appeal is limited to specific demographics because he chose to make bipartisanship the centerpiece of his campaign. That may be a great way to govern after Election Day, but it’s a piss-poor way to fire up a voter.

Most of the others sound like policy wonks, which remains the wet blanket way to campaign. Guys like Kucinich and Gravel put forth the best progressive platforms but are hampered by their own limitations of message delivery. And unfair as it is, looks, height, demeanor and even the timbre of a voice does matter, will continue to matter, and cannot be overcome with anything less than the mesmerizing force of charisma, which cannot be forced.

Edwards, Richardson and Dodd display flashes of what it takes to be good candidates. Of all the Dem candidates, Obama and Edwards provide the most flashes, but neither has been able to sustain it long enough to overcome the nostalgia for Bill Clinton that Hillary represents. Bill was smart - a nice attribute for a leader to have, but his middle road compromises on nearly everything provided almost nothing progressive for the country. And the military-energy-insurance-defense industrial complex just rolled on under his tenure.

So the likely outcome is a split of progressives, mostly between Obama and Edwards. Both are using campaign trickery in recent months to grasp at straws in pursuit of the grande dame of nothingness. Democratic voters want a winner, but they’d rather have a winner that fires them up with a vision ahead. It’s not too late for one of the others to find the right mix to provide that. But it’s not something the Netroots can provide.

The period for coaching and coaxing is nearing an end. Either one of these candidates will process all of it and reach within to exemplify visionary leadership, or all will prove they lack the type of instinctive leadership that Americans are looking for. All these preliminaries, all the posturing and debates so far will quickly be forgotten if one of them mounts an October to January sustained assault.

None will gain it or lose it by picking on Petraeus or MoveOn.org. Because America doesn’t really think either is the problem. The problems are the war and the sluggish economy, with the latter covering everything from the price of gasoline and subprime mortgages to outsourced jobs to the costs of healthcare and education. The Republican plan is a cosmetic level of troop reduction and blaming everything economic on immigrants, plus the usual dose of fear of terrorists.

That should be a cakewalk for any real progressive to overcome. But so far, they’re slogging through the frosting on that cake and nobody’s remembered to bring the candles or the fore to light them.

That’s not a messaging problem. That’s an inner lack of something instinctive.

Sure, we can win with Hillary. But that’s not a transformation. That’s merely a sigh of minimal relief.

Addendum: Note the tone conveyed by this post. That’s the sort of defining moral voice that the current race lacks.