Barack Obama has done remarkable things in bringing formerly uninterested Americans into the active electorate. He deserves applause for that.

While these new to politics people are welcomed, their critical thinking about policies needs to be tuned.

Obama is too smart by half. He has become the story of the political decade (and one of the great political stories of all-time) by a tremendously well crafted and delivered piece of rhetoric. In and of itself rhetoric is not a bad thing, it certainly can serve to motivate people to become active and involved and so it can be a good thing as well.

What is of concern is the feeling of the simplistic nature of some of the people he has brought on board. Those who are interviewed in the media and cannot state any reason for supporting or voting for him outside of the rhetoric.

He stands for "change!" and for "hope!" and for "unity!"

Americans are free to vote for whomever, for whatever reasons. What we would hope is that the grand majority (if not all) vote for substantive reasons. It bothers me not if someone votes for one side or the other because they believe strongly in the positions of that side, no matter how extreme some might view those positions to be.

Policy debates are the foundation of this great republic.

A small group of hyper Obama supporters has a microphone thrust in their face. The reporter asking why they support this candidate. One shouts that he will "unite the country!" another chimes in right after "we want all Americans to break the old cycle and come together, let's unite!"

OK! Sounds great. Let's do!

Wish I were that reporter. I would have followed up with the question he should have asked next. "What would you unite around?"

Unity is a great thing. Something we experience as Americans far too little. The concept of uniting around causes greater than ours is alluring. One we should continue to strive towards.

However to think this country is going to "break the old cycle, come together, let's unite!" is pointless rhetoric that gets us nowhere.

Those hyper supporters are, sadly, clueless (btw true of both parties, more so here and now in this particular campaign). They could try to answer the question of "what would you unite around" but their answers would either be more rhetoric (e.g. 'a vision for the future') or entirely wrong (e.g. 'unite to get our troops out immediately'). In other words they are hyped up about uniting around their beliefs. Pretty easy stance to take.

We don't need unity in America (matter of fact you could argue that unity is a dangerous thing that has the potential to lead people down one single path and that path doesn't include any checks and balances on it).

And uniting America is, frankly, impossible. Abortion? Umm... nope no uniting on that. Illegal immigration? uh, let's see... nope. Taxes? again, not really seeing unity on that issue either.

The overriding concept that Barack Obama can bring the country together behind a clear vision for a beautiful future is mind-numbingly shallow. And what's sad about it is that people, lots and lots of them will vote on this and this alone.

If, in January of 2009, we inaugurate President Barack Obama - we surely hope and pray that he will lead this country in a positive and productive manner. He might well become a great President and a truly honored and historic figure.

He will not, however, "unite" the country around a political vision that suffices the desire of those who support him. No candidate can and none will.

What we really need is unity in the understanding that, despite our differences, we can proactively move forward. We don't need "unity!" we need leadership even without consensus.