At what point does an individual stop supporting the lesser of two evils? The question has become particularly important in this primary race, as Barack Obama ascended to political stardom by ostensibly breaking free from the evils of mainstream politics and creating a platform based on hope and change. Searching for substantive policy, I began to chip away at Obama's political posturing and came to a daunting conclusion: there are a multitude of reasons one shouldn't vote for Obama, especially for those within the Arab-American community.

Senator Obama is not anti-war, nor does he genuinely seek appropriate alternatives to militarism in the Middle East. Arab-Americans and putative leftists overlook the fact that he is an ardent supporter of the invasion, bombing, and ongoing occupation of Afghanistan. One also cannot dismiss that his views are consistent with the Democratic Party platform, which aspires to refocus on Afghanistan. Such party views bode well for Obama's plan to deploy additional troops and increase funding, but as with the case in Iraq, it will only intensify Afghanistan's civilian population's struggles. Obama fully supported the Lebanon war (even as the Israeli military killed hundreds of Lebanese civilians and leveled civilian infrastructure with tens of thousands of US-shipped cluster bombs), and played up his pro-Israel rhetoric nearly as much as Hillary Clinton. As with nearly every other candidate, Obama fully supports Israel's 40 year occupation of Palestinian land and dutifully endorsed Gaza's besiegement.

Obama may have voiced opposition to the Iraq war five years ago, but his "courage" came at a time when it minimally affected his political aspirations. Since entering the senate, he has voted in favor of nearly $300 billion in war appropriations and will likely continue to appropriate billions more if elected president. Obama is already magnifying his hawkish abilities with foreign policy (e.g. his illustrious declaration that he'd bomb Pakistan on "actionable intelligence") and has tried to validate himself as a "tough when necessary" type of leader.

Post 9/11, foreign affairs inexperience has been a sore point for all Democrats. There is nothing more troubling than a field of candidates trying to prove themselves to their opposition. One only need look at the rise of Amir Peretz as Israel's Defense Minister. He was a well-known leftist against the Israeli occupation before coming into office. In an attempt to demonstrate his fortitude, he championed the destruction of Lebanon, then defended the decision as fervently as any right-wing activist. At best, Obama's inexperience will limit his capacity to control Iraq's military occupation, as it would every Democrat and most Republicans during the inaugural year. Additionally, expectation for his vaguely outlined phased withdrawal, which creeps well into midterm election campaigning, further denies the mechanics of mainstream American politics and Congressional trepidation. No Democrat or Republican can afford to lose Congressional seats; it's precisely why little is achieved during election years. Potential voters may find it useful to recall the excitement engendered after the 2006 midterm elections when a pullout was "imminent;" assurances were given that mass hearings would take place on Capitol Hill, and accountability was declared the wave of the future. Predictably, campaigning supplanted accountability, while the Iraqi people were left hanging in the balance. Ultimately, no viable political candidate will be able to pull out of Iraq before the 2010 elections.

Arab-Americans should not be confused. No matter how appetizing the Bobby Kennedy-style rhetoric and charismatic speeches may be, if our community keeps acquiescing to the status quo it will never change. We must begin building solid coalitions with other groups that face similar challenges (i.e. the Latino and African-American community), or our small vote will amount to little more than election-time pandering. Unfortunately, organizational work and outreach is in its infancy stages. Many organizations purportedly speaking for us have become part of the system, consequently stripping their constituents of their legitimate demands. Furthermore, our community has become enthralled with general election politics, but it isn't sufficiently focused on working at the state and local levels, where we can have the most impact. Obama may lend more support to our issues than Huckabee, but if our community starts supporting candidates who do not recognize our plight (as well as the plight of other minority groups) our community at home and our families abroad will suffer.

One question remains: which viable candidate is left to vote for? Unfortunately, in its existing capacity, our vote isn't strong enough to make a significant impact. The naysayer will proclaim that our votes count in swing states. Yet, if this was truly the case, our vote would be coveted, not ignored. No viable candidate on either side of the aisle even bothered to show up to the Arab-American Institute's National Leadership Conference in Michigan, where the largest portion of our constituency resides.

Our current predicament underscores the limitation of the two-party system: small voices have no voices. The only way to build a better future for the Arab-American community and positively impact policy toward the Arab world is to begin building coalitions in which smaller voices can come together to effectively change society. This method will legitimately empower ourselves without acceding to a blind principled stance. We can't just hope for a better future; we have to work for it, and sadly, the empty rhetoric spewed by Obama and the rest of the mainstream candidates only serves to solidify our problems in perpetuity. So, Yalla Vote! But do it in good conscience, and in a way that makes sense for our community. --Remi Kanazi is a Palestinian-American writer based in New York City. He can be contacted at remroum@gmail.com.