I don’t get the love affair a lot of people seem to have with Senator Barack Obama. People attach an aura to him as if he’s sent by God to right the wrongs of Satan’s son, Dubya.

To a certain extent, it’s understandable; the sorry state of affairs that’s been this decade’s status quo makes the 1990s look like “Happy Days,” with Bill Clinton as the Fonz, thumbs up and saying “aaaayyyyy!!!” Many people, including myself, see Obama as the return of Clinton, both in his persona — the way he speaks and carries himself — and in his politics.

Unlike a lot of people, that’s why I don’t like him.

It’s not Obama I specifically dislike. It’s the people (except my mother) who’ve pinned all their hopes on him that he’ll correct all that’s wrong because they think every problem comes only from the Bush administration.

More to the point, I hate all the candidates, not just this election, but also all elections in the future, because the problem isn’t with one candidate’s platform or another’s scandal; the corruption is systemic. It’s a built-in feature that no candidate can alter because the candidates themselves are part of the problem.

First, there’s the money involved. According to Opensecrets.org — and common sense — corporate dollars make up the majority of campaign contributions for both parties and such gifts determine policy, both economic and military.

Then there’s the electoral process itself. Politics is a zero-sum game, where winner takes all in a game of full contact Dung Fu and ideas take a backseat to character assassination, innuendo, blatant dishonesty and childishness by educated adults who want a high paying job. In short, candidates will say and do anything to get elected; hence the mudslinging and dirty tricks, as well as many of the promises to their constituencies they don’t plan to keep.

It’s all part of the job, and the corruption goes both ways — the candidate is corrupted by the office’s power, and the power attracts those who are already corruptible.

Which leads me back to Obama. There’s something familiar about the senator, and that something is Bill Clinton, whose wife Obama out-Clintoned this week for the candidacy. The way he weathered the Jeremiah Wright crisis reminded me of how President Clinton handled the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Clinching the nomination in the wake of the Rev. Wright issue proved that the so-called “inexperienced” Obama dodged bullets as effortlessly as Keanu Reeves in the “Matrix.”

That’s the problem. If he can effectively sidestep a landmine like that, what kind of holes could he dig himself out of if he became president?

Many remember the 1990s as a time of low gas prices, a decent economy and no occupation of a foreign land while a relatively social liberal status quo held sway. What most forget was the murderous sanctions and illegal no-fly zones over Iraq; NAFTA; the support of murderous regimes in Bogota, Ankara and Algiers, to name a few; and his support for Israel, which Clinton took to new heights.

In fact, the media — and liberals — overlooked some startling similarities between the Clinton and Bush eras: both saw acts of domestic terrorism, OKC and 9/11, which were used to pass repressive anti-terror legislation. Both saw “humanitarian” invasions for “freedom,” the 1999 war against Yugoslavia and the 2003 Iraq occupation under the pretext of saving captive Muslims.

The only difference was Clinton did a better job of imperialism than Bush, but it’s only a matter of degree; the intent was the same. It’s not an issue of who’s in charge but the substance of the system they’re a part of.

Yet short memories abound and so many are flocking to Obama’s “Change You Can Believe In” crap. It’s hitting close to home, with my own mother marching in step.

“Ali,” she said, “you need to register to vote and go vote for Obama.”

“Why?” I asked. “Because he won’t bomb Iran,” was her reply.

The decision to bomb Iran isn’t entirely up to the president; there are other factors involved, not least of which are the multiple forces that shape Washington policy towards that and other imperial directions.

Much has been said about his opposition to the war and his call to withdraw troops from Iraq, which has earned him praise in liberal circles and vilified him among conservatives. Yet a closer examination of his policy shows that he in fact favors a long-term commitment.

Obama has called for a withdrawal, unless Al-Qaeda maintains a presence in Iraq, in which case the military stays. “Since al Qaeda is in fact building a base within Iraq,” wrote George Friedman, founder and head of Strategy Forecast, “Obama’s commitment to having troops in Iraq is open-ended.”

Obama has repeatedly made speeches to AIPAC gatherings and has spoken on the record supporting Israel’s security against Iran. Not just this year, either; the Associated Press reported in Jan. 2006 that Obama was in Israel meeting with Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom and was paraphrased as saying, “the United States stood by Israel and its leader,” Ariel Sharon.

“Our hearts go out to the family of Prime Minister Sharon and we are praying for a recovery on his part,” he said. At an AIPAC conference in 2007, he said, “we must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs.”

And in response to allegations of inexperience and misguidance in seeking diplomacy with Iran from the McCain camp, the Obama camp responded by pointing out “that Mr. Obama had called for tougher sanctions on Iran” and for “financial divestment,” the New York Times wrote.

Why did he do this?

“He is merely doing what he thinks is necessary to get elected and he will continue doing it as long as it keeps him in power,” wrote Ali Abunimah in the Electronic Intifada in March 2007. In other words, he – like all politicians – will do anything for their career, including turning their back on their own principles to move up the ladder.

Yet despite this, “Obama won overwhelming support in a mock election by more than 200 American and Muslim delegates at the U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Doha,” in Feb., according to AFP. Many in the community, in fact, support him because of his alleged Islamic upbringing, which he denies, while his statements regarding Israel and Iran are a slap in the face of Muslims everywhere. On the other hand, Islamophobes like Daniel Pipes play up in order to discredit him.

If he was born a Muslim and denies it, Pipes wrote in the Jerusalem Post, “this points to a major deceit, a fundamental misrepresentation about himself that has profound implications about his character and his suitability as president.”

While Obama will pursue imperial interests if elected, he’ll attract the ire of a reactionary right wing, much like Clinton did in the nineties. While the latter dealt with the Christian Right and the militias for allegedly harboring a “globalist” communist agenda, Obama would face the wrath of the Orientalist movement, whom he’ll feel compelled to appease through warmongering.

The real question is why vote? Electoral politics is just a system where lowlife opportunism and betrayal is rewarded and institutionalized, not to mention legitimizing the American empire.

Instead of putting our trust in someone who’ll say and do anything to boost his/her career, why not change things more directly on our terms in the streets, rather than on theirs in the voting booths?

It’s time for a grassroots strategy, where democratic ideals are reflected in a truly democratic movement, not the Democratic Party. Or Barack Obama. Or anyone for that matter.