Knowing that Barack Obama has compromised himself, knowing that he has been censoring himself since he first took office in Illinois, how can anyone rationally think that he will use any opening whatsoever to do anything for the poor, working, and middle class of America that is being cleansed of all its assets by the corporations and politicians in Washington?

::::::::

Thirty days to “hope”, right? That ought to be an episode in Morgan Spurlock’s 30 Days series. We could have Spurlock go live with those who have found “hope” in this election and explore how it takes hold of one and leads one’s mind to irrationally think.

What is rational anymore? Rational in the dictionary, if we consult Merriam-Webster, is “having reason or understanding.”

What does it mean to have reason or understanding? Reason can be an explanation or justification for one’s thinking. Understanding can be a mental grasp or comprehension.

Well, do Americans intent on voting Barack Obama mentally grasp the reality of Barack Obama’s candidacy?

I’m not talking about do they grasp the shallow perceived reality that Americans may or may not be ready for a black president. The question of, “Is America ready for a black president?” is such a loaded question that it’s no wonder the media in all its punditry keep going back to this question.

What I am talking about is what Chris Hedges talks about in his article, “Dennis Kucinich on the Democrats’ Bailout Betrayal.” He accurately puts Obama’s record into perspective after giving Kucinich his due for all the work he did to stop the bailout:

Obama’s voting record in the Senate is in line with the corrupt Democratic mainstream, including Biden, who works on behalf of corporations and especially the credit card industry. Obama knows where power lies in the United States. It is not with the citizens, who with ratios of 100 to 1 pleaded with their representatives in Washington not to loot the national treasury to bail out Wall Street investment firms. Power lies with the corporations. These corporations, not us, pick who runs for president. You cannot be a candidate without their blessing and money. These corporations, including the Commission on Presidential Debates, a private corporation, determine who gets to speak and what issues candidates can or cannot challenge, from universal, not-for-profit, single-payer health care to Wall Street bailouts to NAFTA. If you do not follow the corporate script you become as marginal and invisible as Ralph Nader or Bob Barr or Cynthia McKinney.

Obama has always served his corporate masters. He opposed Rep. John Murtha’s call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq and supported continued funding for the war. He voted in July 2005 to reauthorize the Patriot Act. He did not support an amendment that was part of a bankruptcy bill that would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent. He opposed a bill that would have reformed the notorious Mining Law of 1872, which allows mineral companies to rape federal land for profit. He did not back the single-payer health care bill HR 676, sponsored by Kucinich and John Conyers. He advocates the death penalty and nuclear power. He backed the class-action “reform” bill—the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)—that was part of a large lobbying effort by financial firms, which make up Obama’s second-biggest single bloc of donors. CAFA would effectively shut down state courts as a venue to hear most class-action lawsuits. Workers, under CAFA, would no longer have redress in many of the courts where these cases have a chance of defying powerful corporations. CAFA moves these cases into corporate-friendly federal courts dominated by Republican judges.

I’ll rephrase that. For some people, it’s difficult. I understand. You want to be part of history. You want to make change. You're tired of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and Republicans.

But, do you want to help Wall Street reign supreme for the next four years? Do you want to prolong this war in Iraq? Do you want to continue the suppression of civil liberties? Do you want to keep from the people what many Western industrial countries have---single-payer health care? Do you want to see more workers’ rights be violated and stripped away?

What makes you think that if you vote for a guy who has diametrically opposed all that progressives and liberals stand for than you will be able to push him to shift to the left? How in this country do you plan to do this?

It cannot be done.

Get rid of this notion that democracy is going to work for you. This democracy will do no such thing. This democracy is setup to work for the richest 1%.

Like George Carlin says, “It’s a big club, and you ain’t it. You and I aren’t in it.” And the recent bailout proves it.

You don’t matter. Your phone calls, your emails, your letters to the editor, your angry messages to the news networks, your spontaneous rallies and demonstrations, your signs with clever catch phrases to “defeat” the bailout, your time and energy, your hard-earned money put into opposing the bailout---None of it mattered.

Well, no, that’s not entirely true. Actually, for 228 members of the House of Representatives your anger and outrage mattered. Why it mattered is unclear, but let’s presume they themselves were opposed to the bailout or they feared what you, the voter, would do if they didn’t oppose it.

But, then the media hysteria and the calls for Congress to get something done and get it done NOW by Bush, Paulson, Obama, McCain, and other leaders put the sock in the mouth of the angry populace.

Some put the sock in their own mouth agreeing that something had to be done about the credit crisis and the financial turmoil threatening small businesses and that something, after Monday’s stock market drop, could be this bailout bill and then more legislation to address the situation.

The infuriated and outraged were heard last week. The cauldron that holds the populist uprising that politicians must reckon with now, after this election, and beyond that is bubbling over the rim. But, what has become of the infuriated and outraged?

In the face of defeat, there was no planned reaction. There was no plan to descend upon Washington and Wall Street and give them a taste of the populist uprising.

The logical response to this bailout should have been to set up a “Camp Casey” in Washington to bring to a halt the pillaging and plundering of the lower and middle classes in America for the benefit of the top 1% in America. But, what’s holding the people back?

The same thing that prevented more people from going to Denver to protest the war prevented thousands from heading to Washington and Wall Street to oppose the war: Barack Obama.

Antiwar forces afraid they would hurt the campaign of Barack Obama repeated the mistake they made in 2004 when John Kerry was running and campaigned against a big antiwar march during the Democratic National Convention (DNC) this year.

Now, it is even worse. Forces aren’t campaigning against a reaction to the bailout of Wall Street. They aren’t reacting to this “cash for trash” proposal for two reasons.

One, those that would react have their hearts and minds invested in this election and yearn for Barack Obama, the incarnation of hope and change, to be elected so that some kind of opening can be opened for progressive change.

Two, those with hearts and minds invested in the election of Barack Obama do not wish to admit that Barack Obama was 100% in favor of the Wall Street bailout.

I’ll write that again.

Those with hearts and minds invested in the election of Barack Obama do not wish to admit that Barack Obama was 100% in favor of the Wall Street bailout.

And why admit it? Admitting it would require a rational reaction. Instead, Americans who support Barack Obama would rather show nepotism to their favorite beliefs.

Ayn Rand called it “blanking out” and further described it as “the willful suspension of one’s consciousness, the refusal to think---not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know.”

Americans upon mention of Obama’s role in the Wall Street bailout blank out. Like a computer, their system reboots upon mention of any positive effect Obama may have had in getting the bailout passed.

Supporters of Barack Obama refuse to research how much he is under the thumb of corporations and special interests.

Talk to an Obama supporter. Say to him or her, “Barack Obama met with John McCain and George W. Bush and others to see how the mother of all bailouts could be passed.” Remember how he or she responds and catalog it in your memory for reference after this election when Obama supporters are renouncing their love and infatuation with Barack Obama.

When Americans begin to talk like recovering alcoholics and say, “Hello, my name is Joe Citizen and I am a recovering Obama supporter,” remember how you picked up on the fact that Americans were seemingly intoxicated with the candidacy of Barack Obama. (*It's highly unlikely anybody will talk like that even if disappointed, but wouldn't it be great?)

To steal a line from the blockbuster The Dark Knight, “You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.” Barack Obama has fallen victim to a system that forces him to compromise himself in order to advance to the next level and has been prey to the system since he was first elected to the Illinois state senate in 1997.

Barack Obama had a choice to either compromise himself or stand up to the system. But, he chose compromise because he saw the path to success required him to give up ground to opposing and dominating interests or because he saw politicians that refused to compromise struggling to produce change.

Knowing that Barack Obama has compromised himself, knowing that he has been censoring himself since he first took office in Illinois, how can anyone rationally think that he will use any opening whatsoever to do anything for the poor, working, and middle class of America that is being cleansed of all its assets by the corporations and politicians in Washington?

Barack Obama is not the problem, but he is a symptom. His candidacy is a symptom of this system. And how can you be infuriated and outraged with a system---how can you write or talk about the system with furious anger on a daily basis and at the same time promote a symptom of the very sickness that you hate passionately and wholeheartedly? How will that get us any closer to the world we want future generations to grow up in?

Forget that voting may enrich the sickness which this system perpetuates and at least admit that if you believe in voting, voting for a symptom of the sickness because you believe it could eliminate the sickness is like saying if more people were intoxicated on a daily basis there would be less drunk driving.

It’s like saying if there were more special effects in a movie, the movie would be better.

It’s like saying if you support male porn stars, pornography would be less demeaning to women.

Male porn stars help make pornography demeaning. Special effects often make it unnecessary for films to have a good story, which means the film will not be that good. And, intoxication invariably leads to drunk driving.

So, voting Barack Obama will continue the horrific and terrifying instances of the past seven years. That's because Barack Obama's candidacy and a future win will be how the system renews itself.

The system renews itself every four years whether the system gets a new face to lead it or not.

Barack Obama makes it possible for government and corporations to serve the top 1% instead of the poor, working, and middle classes of America. Obama makes it possible for a phony “war on terror” to continue and for Bush to finish his presidency without being removed from office (and for Dick Cheney to finish his vice presidency without being removed from office).

And those that support Obama, grant carte blanche to Washington and Wall Street to not only do as they please during this election but to also do as they please from now until the next election.

Authors Bio:
Kevin Gosztola is managing editor of Shadowproof Press. He also produces and co-hosts the weekly podcast, "Unauthorized Disclosure." He was an editor for OpEdNews.com