I'm tired of war. Not just what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the culture wars that have shaped U.S. political discourse for decades. The battles that sprouted out of the countercultural revolution of the 60s and 70s—which played an important role in advancing civil rights and was a collective step forward—but have devolved into divisive roadblocks to further progress.

Andrew Sullivan refers to "the debilitating, self-perpetuating family quarrel of the Baby Boom generation that has long engulfed all of us." The Right has its War on Christmas and the War on God and a dozen other perceived assaults on "conservative" values. The Left has its "Two Americas" and the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" and other brushes for painting its own dichotomous portrait of the political landscape.

Sullivan thinks it's a generational issue. But having matured under divisive Clinton and Bush presidencies and grown accustomed to the anonymity of the Internet, which allows partisan bickering to descend to an entirely new level, post-Boomer generations may emerge more divided than their predecessors.

Not that there isn't a grain of truth in some of these issues. But it's how the messages are presented that is frustrating and, ultimately, counterproductive. Everything is "us versus them." Good versus evil. Those on the political extremes truly view politics as battle—the only way to win is to fight until the enemy is defeated. And those in the middle... they are turned off by the vileness and often stop participating. They lose hope.

Which brings me to Obama. I'm certainly not the first to articulate the belief that Obama is the one candidate that can transcend this divisive environment—Sullivan made the case in his cover story for The Atlantic and David Brooks touches on it in his latest NY Times column:

Some Americans (Republican or Democrat) believe that the country’s future can only be shaped through a remorseless civil war between the children of light and the children of darkness. Though Tom DeLay couldn’t deliver much for Republicans and Nancy Pelosi, so far, hasn’t been able to deliver much for Democrats, these warriors believe that what’s needed is more partisanship, more toughness and eventual conquest for their side.

But Obama does not ratchet up hostilities; he restrains them. He does not lash out at perceived enemies, but is aloof from them. In the course of this struggle to discover who he is, Obama clearly learned from the strain of pessimistic optimism that stretches back from Martin Luther King Jr. to Abraham Lincoln. This is a worldview that detests anger as a motivating force, that distrusts easy dichotomies between the parties of good and evil, believing instead that the crucial dichotomy runs between the good and bad within each individual.

If you're unconvinced, watch (or rewatch) the speech Obama gave at the 2004 Democratic National Convention below.

Maybe it's just talk. Obama may not be able to fulfill many of his promises, and his rhetoric may just be fancy packaging for an empty box. But after years of serious, but solvable, policy issues being framed in divisive language or overshadowed by unrelated personal attacks, packaging matters.