Tag Archives: Bill Clinton

From Immigrants to Democrats: The Citizenship USA Program

Attempting to Naturalize as many new Americans as possible for votes is nothing new to the Democratic Party. Though it looks like the Obama Administration may conduct this goal through a blanket amnesty, the Clinton Administration tried to create more Democrats a different way, by taking  advantage of a program called Citizenship USA.

Heres a little background. In 1995 the INS decided it was overwhelmed with a backlog of Citizenship applicants and decided to form an program called Citizenship USA to speed the process up from a 3 year wait, to a 6 month wait. Meaning an applicant could become an American Citizen within 6 months of turning in paperwork. The Clinton White House sought to take advantage of this program and to turn these new American Citizens into instant Democrat Voters.

The Acting Inspector General Robert L. Ashbaugh conducted an Investigation into Citizenship USA and heres a link to his full report titled,”An Investigation of the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s Citizenship USA Initiative

The report found that Immigrants were rushed through the Naturalization process with inadequate files, no background checks, and no finger print checks.

From the Reports Conclusions (emphasis mine):

As detailed throughout this report, naturalization processing before CUSA already suffered from systemic weaknesses. INS lacked standards for the consistent evaluation of an applicant’s “good moral character” and other qualifications for citizenship. INS had become reliant on the use of temporary files, thus preventing adjudicators from learning as much as possible about an applicant’s background, including information concerning possible grounds for disqualification. Applicant criminal history checks were poorly administered.

Adjudicators were trained and instructed to concentrate primarily on the minimal statutory criteria. In addition, their inquiries were limited by the frequent unavailability of the crucial tools of naturalization processing: applicant criminal history checks and permanent files. The procedures on which INS relied to make these tools available to adjudicators, clerical and automated processes, experienced even greater strain as production expectations increased. As a result of all these factors, naturalization processing integrity was compromised during CUSA.

We found that INS was willing to take these risks primarily because the agency had long tolerated a degree of error in its processes. As we described earlier in this report, INS managed the fingerprint check according to an analysis that balanced flaws in the system against the resources required to redress them, and thereby accepted a certain level of error. In view of the use of this approach in administering one of the most significant checks in the naturalization system—the check against the possibility of bestowing citizenship on someone with a disqualifying criminal record—it was no surprise that a similarly tolerant perspective informed INS’ remaining safeguards, particularly when the rate of processing was increased.

Thus, implicit in the idea of backlog reduction was a general acceptance of the status quo in naturalization processing. We found that it was not an ignorance of the problems so much as an acceptance of them. As Commissioner Meissner told the OIG when discussing why INS moved forward with its plans for CUSA knowing of the problems that then existed in making applicants’ permanent files available to naturalization adjudicators, “the assumption was this: . . . we have been doing it this way for years and years and years, and things need to improve. But they are not going to—you know, we are not going to create an entirely new system in a flash, and so we will do the best we can with what we have.”

Furthermore, before the implementation of CUSA those vulnerabilities had not been the subject of widespread public outcry, and thus there was no outside stimulus for INS to mend its ways. What was of immediate concern to the public and to Congress were the unconscionable delays in processing naturalization applications, and it was on those delays that INS singlemindedly focused its attention.

We’re hearing similar arguments today about a legal immigration process that takes too long, is too cumbersome and is unmanageable.

However, of greatest concern is the fact that INS has not made progress toward developing and implementing adjudicative standards, including the standards for English testing and the evaluation of good moral character. INS recognized before CUSA that such standards were missing and that their absence diminished the quality of naturalization processing during CUSA.

Obviously the program was designed to do nothing but quickly Naturalize Americans. Any flaws already in the INS process were escalated by the need to process individuals within the time frame of the program. Now lets look into the Clinton White House’s involvement and the drive for new Democrats.

From the Report’s section on White House/NPR (National Performance Review program under direct supervision of Vice President Al Gore) Involvement in the CUSA Program:

Two distinct themes emerge from the allegations raised by members of Congress with respect to the CUSA initiative. First, that the quality of naturalization adjudications was compromised during CUSA. Second, that these compromises resulted from political pressures engineered by the White House. Previous chapters in this report have addressed the first issue; in this chapter, we examine allegations concerning White House pressure on INS and its CUSA program.

As we discuss in earlier sections of this report, our investigation found that the poorly managed CUSA program was initiated by INS (without White House input) as a legitimate response to a growing backlog of naturalization applications. White House officials became involved in CUSA in early 1996— before INS had made significant inroads into its naturalization backlog—by making the program a target of aggressive “reinvention” efforts by the National Performance Review (NPR).2 During an approximately 6-week period in
March and April 1996, NPR officials visited the INS Key City Districts and attempted to shake up INS bureaucracy by suggesting changes to INS’ hiring procedures.

We found that this White House/NPR interest in CUSA added to the significant pressure that already existed on INS to meet the ambitious backlog reduction and case processing goals it had set for itself and publicized widely. INS’ single-minded focus on processing cases to meet these goals, in turn, led to a series of mistakes, shortcuts, and mismanagement that adversely affected the quality of naturalizations conducted during the CUSA program as discussed throughout this report.

As part of our investigation, we examined the reasons for the White House/NPR involvement in CUSA. We found evidence that White House officials were interested in INS’ naturalization program for a variety of reasons, including “political” reasons that related to the November 1996 election, but from the evidence available we did not find that those interests resulted in any improper actions. We describe both the evidence that we found that relates to the reasons for the White House and NPR involvement in CUSA as well as White House officials’ explanations for their actions.

Although he says he found nothing improper, I’ll let you decide. First their findings:

One of the most pointed criticisms of the CUSA program made by Members of Congress was that the White House created or influenced CUSA in order to increase the number of Democratic voters. The White House strongly denied this allegation, arguing that its involvement in CUSA was motivated by a desire to assist INS to deliver on promises it made to individuals who were entitled to better services. As part of this investigation, we identified events and communications that pertain to the allegation, and we set them forth here because of the seriousness of the charge and the interest in the question. Given our finding that the involvement of the White House had little direct negative impact on CUSA, the propriety of the motivations behind this involvement is a political question beyond the scope of the OIG’s inquiry.

To what extent, if any, did this heightened White House involvement reflect a desire to increase the Democratic turnout at the 1996 general election? Certainly the possibility that White House involvement in CUSA could be perceived as improper occurred to many people, including Commissioner Meissner, who recalled having voiced her concerns to (Rahm)Emanuel and to both Attorney General Reno and Deputy Attorney General Gorelick.

We found several pieces of evidence showing that the White House was aware of and interested in the connection between naturalization, voting, and the 1996 election. The evidence includes:

· The September 26, 1995, memorandum from Deputy Attorney General Gorelick, drafted by Gerri Ratliff, to Kevin O’Keefe at the White House. The memorandum discussed INS naturalization initiatives and included a page entitled “Talking Points Re Voter Registration” that discussed INS’ limited role in facilitating voter registration at naturalization ceremonies. The memorandum noted that due to INS’ limited resources, it would have to rely on partnerships with other organizations to expand voter registration opportunities.

· A 1-page cover letter dated September 28, 1995, from O’Keefe to Ickes forwarding Ratliff’s memorandum. The cover letter included two paragraphs on voter registration, including the statement that “the pace of naturalization will limit the number of new voters.

· Statements that INS employees in New York said Lyons made specifically referencing the November 1996 election.

· Farbrother’s March 28, 1996, e-mail to the Vice President noting that INS was not going to be able to “produce a million new citizens before election day.”

· Kamarck’s April 4, 1996, memorandum to the Vice President stating that “[o]nly by working 7 days a week and longer hours can we hope to make a significant enough dent in the backlog that it will show up when it matters.”

We also found evidence that more specifically refers to, or could be interpreted as referring to, the potential benefit to the Democratic Party of naturalizing a million new citizens in FY 1996.

· The March 13, 1996, O’Keefe memorandum to Ickes discussing that Skinny Sheahan, “our best field organizer,” was trying to figure out how to handle voter registration at a large naturalization ceremony in Chicago.

· A conversation between Farbrother and Kamarck in which, according to Farbrother, Kamarck spoke of the President’s desire to involve NPR because of his belief that the large number of people in California waiting for naturalization represented likely votes for him in the 1996 election.

· The memorandum written for Ickes by Stephen Warnath of the DPC expressing the Hispanic Caucus’ prospective view that “faster naturalization means more potential Democratic voters in the next election.

· The letters written by Daniel Solis and Father Vega to various White House officials that included comments about how enhanced naturalization efforts could increase the number of potential Democratic voters in the 1996 election.

The timeline of events within the report exposes quite alot of evidence as well, here is one excerpt:

Daniel Solis, head of United Neighborhood Organization (UNO) in Chicago,7 told the OIG that he attended a September 1994 Democratic Party fundraiser in Chicago and was seated near the President at the dinner afterwards. In the course of an approximately 10-minute conversation about naturalization, Solis said he told President Clinton that there were approximately 5.5 million potential new citizens in the United States. Solis told the OIG that the President commented that there should be an effort to register these people to vote, to which Solis responded that they had to be naturalized before they could vote. Solis said that he told the President that research showed that newly naturalized citizens tended to vote at a higher rate than other citizens and also tended to vote for incumbents. Solis said President Clinton asked him to send information about this issue to Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes, who was also attending the Chicago event.

The report also greatly details Rahm Emanuel’s involvement in the program and dismay at his refusal to answer the IG’s inquiry:

Whether Emanuel’s interest was real and reflected political acumen or merely politeness is a question that his refusal to be interviewed has made more difficult to answer.

Now for some statements from outside the investigation. WorldNetDaily Reports:

A former INS official who attended meetings with Rahm Emanuel when Emanuel was a White House aide says the hard-charging Democrat relaxed rules to naturalize even criminal immigrants and secure their votes for President Clinton ahead of the 1996 presidential election.

Emanuel coordinated with Hispanic community organizers in Chicago to rubberstamp immigrants for citizenship, the INS official said in an exclusive interview with WND.

It turns out the long-time Chicago political operative was the behind-the-scenes catalyst for Citizenship USA, a project run out of then-Vice President Al Gore’s office.

Rahm was doing it under the guise of Al Gore’s Reinventing Government program,” said the official, who helped direct INS security policy. “He was definitely the point man and was past his neck in the scandal at INS.”

Emanuel, now caught up in the corruption scandal involving Democrat Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, refused to cooperate with an investigation into the citizenship project by the Justice Department Inspector General.

“He got every rule changed in the hiring of adjudicators so they could naturalize more Mexican nationals to vote for Bill Clinton, not to mention getting the rules changed to naturalize anyone,” regardless of their criminal background, said the official, who’s still employed by the federal government and requested anonymity to avoid reprisals.

They had immigration ceremonies at stadiums with DNC (Democratic National Committee) staff registering them as voters right there,” he added.

At one Chicago ceremony held inside Soldier Field, some 11,000 new citizens were sworn in.

Another former INS official, William Carroll, said Emanuel “took midnight trips to INS headquarters to meet with (Commissioner) Doris Meissner about Citizenship USA.”

He said that in March 1996 he and other INS district directors were given “marching orders” by headquarters to push through as many new citizens as possible ahead of the election, even if no criminal and national security background checks were completed.

INS deportation officer Tom Conklin said that he and other agents were pressured to rubberstamp immigrants “with two or three arrests for crimes like burglary.”

According to a November 1993 interview with Mother Jones magazine, Emanuel began pushing Clinton to be proactive on the issue of immigration right after he took office, and years ahead of the 1996 re-election campaign.

“I just wanted to be ahead of this issue and have our staff on it, defining it constantly,” Emanuel said, eyeing Texas and California, two key states in 1996 where immigration was a hot issue.

If Democrats can be this dirty on Immigration, is a blanket amnesty in order to get Democrat Votes that much of a stretch. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had a direct involvement in this travesty of justice, and I’m sure, he has no problem trying it again.

Here is Obama’s speech on Immigration Reform

“The politics of who is and who is not allowed to enter this country, and on what terms,  has always been contentious, and that remains true today. And it’s made worse by a failure of those of us in Washington to fix a broken immigration system.”

“In fact because we don’t do a very good job of tracking who comes in and out of the country as visitors large numbers avoid Immigration Law simply by overstaying their visas. The result is an estimated 11 million Undocumented Immigrants in the United States.”

“More fundamentally the presence of so many illegal immigrants makes a mockery of all those who are going through the process legally.”

“For example there are those in the Immigrants Rights Community who have argued, passionately, that we should simply provide those who are illegally with legal status or, at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until, we have better laws. And often this argument is framed in moral terms, Why should we punish people who are just trying to earn a living? I recognize the sense of compassion that drives this argument but I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair.”

“The 11 million who  broke these laws should be held accountable. Now if the majority of Americans are skeptical of a blanket amnesty, they are also skeptical that it is possible to round up and deport 11 million people. They know its not possible. Such an effort would be logistically impossible and wildly expensive. Moreover, it would tear at the very fabric of this nation. Because immigrants who are here illegally are now intricately woven into that fabric.”

“Finally we have to demand responsibility from people living here illegally. They must be required to admit that they broke the law, they should be required to register, pay their taxes, pay a fine, and learn English. They must get right with the law before they can get in line and earn their citizenship.”

“We can create a pathway for legal status that is fair, reflective of our values, and works.”

Obama has no intention of deporting the illegal immigrants, and his administrations policy on ICE’s Silent raids confirms this. Instead of rounding up and deporting the illegal immigrants working  at different businesses, the illegals are instead fired by their employer and left with either welfare or crime to sustain themselves.

In July an Obama Administration memo titled “Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Reform” was discovered.

SUBJECT: Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Immigration Reform

This memorandum offers administrative relief options to promote family unity, foster economic growth, achieve significant process improvements and reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United Slates without authorization. It includes recommendations regarding implementation timeframes and required resources.

You already have the Obama Administration looking for ways to change regulations in order to keep Illegal Immigrants in the United States if Congress does not tackle Immigration Reform, you have ICE’s Silent Raids forcing illegal immigrants out of a job but not deportating them. And you have Rahm Emanuel as the White House Chief of Staff and his philosophy of “Never waste a crisis.” Amnesty is quite possible and so is a Democrat voter drive: is immigration another crisis that we must not waste?

Was the Communist Party USA behind Obama?

In order to answer this question, I simply visited their website and did a keyword search for Barack Obama. Lets look at some of the results here in chronological order.

February 22, 2008 Newsletter: Labor Upfront

“Buffenbarger election speech could strip gears of labor unity” By Scott Marshall

Getting carried away with your own rhetoric is rarely a good thing. Tom Buffenbarger, president of the Machinists’ union (International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers), did just that in a “warm-up” speech for Hillary Clinton the night of the Wisconsin primary win by Barack Obama. (Necessary disclaimer: I have great respect for the Machinists’ union and president Buffenbarger, a tough industrial union that goes up against some of the biggest multinationals. So this incident is all the more worrisome from a seasoned labor leader.)

Ironically Buffenbarger’s main point was to ridicule Obama’s oratory. John McCain made a nasty attack on Obama’s speech-making that same night, but Buffenbarger’s was even more mean-spirited.

Besides the unfairness and shallowness of this attack on Obama, Buffenbarger’s speech also rudely, and with rightwing stereotypes, attacked Obama’s supporters. Ridiculing supporters as “latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies” ignores the large number of union members and their families, of all races and nationalities, who are supporting Obama. Not to mention that I know lots of steelworkers who appreciate a good latte now and again, and who would like to drive a hybrid car to save gas and the environment.

Working people sorely need to defeat John McCain in November. That can only be done with the full support and unity of all the labor movement. No matter who wins the Democratic nomination, there will be millions of labor households who were once supporting the other candidate.

Most of those in the labor movement, both AFL-CIO and Change to Win unions, who have endorsed a candidate for the Democratic nomination are campaigning positively on the strengths of their chosen candidate. Most recognize that all of both Clinton’s and Obama’s supporters in labor are vital sections of the democratic coalition that it will take to end corporate, rightwing domination of our political life

March 22, 2008  CPUSA 2008 Electoral Policy

The Communist Party USA views the 2008 elections as a tremendous opportunity to defeat the policies of the right-wing Republicans and to move our country in a new progressive direction.

The record turnout in the Democratic Presidential primary races shows that millions of voters, including millions of new voters, are using this election to bring about real change. We wholeheartedly agree with them.

While we do not endorse any particular candidates, we do endorse and join in the anti-Bush/anti-right wing sentiments that are driving so many people to activism.

The fact that the Democratic frontrunners are an African American and a woman speaks volumes on how far the country has come. Hillary Clintons campaign has attracted large numbers of supporters, especially women. Other Democratic contenders presented some excellent proposals to reverse the devastation caused by the Bush administrations policies.

Barack Obamas campaign has so far generated the most excitement, attracted the most votes, most volunteers and the most money. We think the basic reason for this is that his campaign has the clearest message of unity and progressive change, while having a real possibility for victory in November.

As we see it, however, this battle is bigger than the Democrats and Republicans, even though those parties are the main electoral vehicle for most voters today. Our approach is to focus on issues and movements that are influencing candidates and parties.

We will work with others to defeat the Republican nominee and to end right-wing control of the new Congress.

The activism growing out of this election will help guarantee a progressive mandate no matter who is elected. It is critical to our countrys renewal and future.

We think this election is a great opportunity to bring an early withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. It can mean job creation and relief for those who are losing their homes or unable to pay their bills.

This election can set the stage to advance the interests of working people; of those excluded because of race, gender, sexual orientation and immigration status.

This election can begin to turn the tide: it can help bring universal health care, save the environment and start the restoration of our democratic rights. This election can strengthen democracy for all.

In the long run, we see the need for an independent peoples party — an electoral party that will unite labor and all democratic forces. We also are working for a political system and government whose priority is to watch the backs of working families, not fill the pockets of the corporate fat cats. Our slogan, people before profits and our goal of Bill of Rights socialism say it all.

April 11, 2008 Report: A Labor and People’s Landslide is Necessary and Possible

INTRODUCTION

This election presents an historic opportunity to breakthrough and change the political landscape.

The grand coalition of the AFL-CIO and Change to Win along with National Council of La Raza, Womens Vote, ACORN, MoveOn and Rock the Vote has launched the biggest ever independent voter mobilization, which is at the heart of winning a massive turnout on election day and after.

The purpose of this report is to discuss how we contribute to the remarkable movement growing in our country, how we can help build the unity needed to defeat the ultra-right with a landslide vote, and how we can build the movement and the Communist Party and YCL to achieve bold and sweeping gains in the post-election period.

LANDSLIDE

Mobilizing a landslide win against the ultra right, necessary to turn the country around, is at the center of our tactics.

A landslide vote that changes control of the White House and improves the balance of forces in the House and Senate and in the states will create a new political dynamic in our country and the possibility to win gains far beyond the current platform of either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

We do not yet know who will emerge, but with each new phase of the campaign Obama is proving to have the greatest potential to bring out a landslide vote to defeat John McCain, and the greater openness to working with mass movements. His recognition of the role of the people in moving history forward, and his message of inclusion not division inspires youth and all generations to get involved It reflects his own life experience.

In response to right-wing media attacks and the Clintons dangerous and opportunist negative campaigning, Obamas profound speech tackling race and racism in America opens a new door to uproot the legacy of slavery and the devastation of the era of ultra-right domination. He makes a deep contribution to unity in the way he addresses white people and shows that racism holds everyone back and the progress made in overcoming racism benefits everyone. Bill Richardsons response, embracing Obamas vision and addressing racism against immigrants and Latinos further uplifts the level of unity.

But whether the nominee is Obama or Clinton the landslide vote must be fought for as a necessary first step to winning a different direction for our country. Neither candidate is of the left. But history teaches us that when mobilized, labor and peoples forces can push through and win progressive gains in a climate like today.

Labor

The community affiliate Working America is active in 14 states with 2 million members. Ohio and Pennsylvania are among the battlegrounds.

The primaries have been challenging because of the different union endorsements and the need to keep unity for November while at the same time building support for Obama. Change to Win has activated their member-to-member operation for Obama. Twelve AFL-CIO unions have endorsed Clinton with different amounts of activation, six have endorsed Obama and the rest are waiting until the nominee is decided.

A remarkable 30% to 40% of voters who turned out so far in the Democratic primaries are union members. The media plays a negative role in promoting the idea that wage workers are Clinton voters and professionals are Obama voters. A deeper look is required. For example, in Rhode Island Change to Win union members voted 56% for Obama, but the union vote reported was 59% Clinton and 40% Obama. Clearly wage workers were among those voting for Obama, as in other states.

African American

The Obama campaign has moved the African American community in a special way, expressed in the turnout and vote. The African American vote has been the most consistent progressive voting bloc over decades, 90% Democratic. We have noted if African Americans vote the proportion of their population in South Carolina, Mississippi and Georgia those states will flip from red to blue. That process is underway, starting with the large primary turnout. Massive voter registration drives are taking place . Participating in community mobilizations will deepen our ties and contribution on an ongoing basis.

The media and the right-wing have been working overtime to diminish the African American vote. Constant distortions by FOX News and others combined with the Clintons slash-and-burn negative campaign has been damaging for future unity and must be challenged.

Attempts by anti-immigrant groups to split the African American and Latino people are being rejected in many instances at the local level. If such fissures are left untouched it will endanger the potential of a landslide vote and movement that can chart a new course. Obamas speech on race made a great contribution in this regard and can be drawn upon..

Latino

There has been a big increase in Latino voters in the primaries, with the largest number of young voters. Latinos represented 10 percent of the voters (up from 6.7 percent in the 2004 general election). They voted 79% Democratic (up from 60-63 percent in the 2004 general election).. The vote was in majority for Clinton, but it is fluid as Obama becomes better known. Outreach to all Latinos on all of the issues is crucial for unity in November.

Women

Women voters have been turning out in large numbers for the Democratic primaries. Clinton has the overall advantage, reflecting the possibility of the first woman president, and the endorsement of NOW. But women are voting for both Clinton and Obama. African American women are voting overwhelmingly for Obama. Single women have voted overwhelmingly for Obama in Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri and Utah, while Clinton carried single women in the remaining ten super Tuesday states.

Youth

When young people began flocking to vote in the Democratic primaries it galvanized the overall turnout. Young people want to impact these elections, and they want change. They want jobs, affordable education and an end to the war in Iraq. They are concerned about health care and the environment. (Rock The Vote 2/08) The number of under 30 voters in the democratic primaries tripled (3 million) from 4 years ago. My space and face book sign-ups on the internet show youth support for Obama who has 1 million friends compared to Clintons 330,000 and McCains 140,000. (NYT 3/27/08)

Progressives for Obama just formed. Tom Hayden, Bill Fletcher, Jr.,Barbara Ehrenreich, and Danny Glover are calling on those in the peace movement who have been sitting out the election to join the grass roots upsurge around Obama and build the demand to end the war. This call to action should be useful locally.

CONCLUSION

We do not know all the twists and turns that the campaign will take. The great democratic spirit spreading through the country will hopefully prevail in a big way for a transformative election. If we stay on top of new developments we will be able to play our unity role. .

The movement for a landslide victory is the beginning. The more decisive the victory, the greater the possibilities for that movement to keep going and growing to win big new gains in a new stage of struggle.

It is clear to me they are more behind Obama than Clinton by the smearing of her “negative campaign” and citing how Obama has more support, and can pick us more of the Latino vote as he becomes more “well known.” While they refuse to endorse a candidate, demanding unity and showing Obama has more support, and smearing Clinton’s campaign is pretty close.

April 26, 2008 UNITY & THE STRUGGLE OF POLITICS

Erica Smiley’s Bi-Annual Report to the National Council April 12-13, 2008; Chicago, IL

POLITICAL CLIMATE

Who was the last national Democratic leader you heard blame greedy corporations for dividing workers along racial lines?

And have you ever heard a presidential candidate acknowledge the role of discrimination in the disproportionate numbers of Black youth in prison?

The movement surrounding the candidacy of Barack Obama is epic.

What makes this candidacy epic is what it has come to represent. This campaign has wrapped up in it all the hopes and dreams for the betterment of our country and the working people it belongs to. This campaign isnt about a man so much as its about whats possible if we are able to take our country out of the tight grip of the Ultra-right.

Is Obama a Communist? Is this upsurge around Obama a Communist movement?

Of course not.

But who dare say the upsurge around his campaign does not have a working class character? These elections are a pivotal battlefield for us to turn a corner in our struggle for socialism.

No where else would we be able to struggle for such broad unity within the working class in this specific moment.

No where else would we be able to struggle and persuade on our vision for the country and our understanding of the current barriers on so many issues.

In this period, we dont have to wax profound about all of our advanced demands in order to advance the struggle for peace and equality, as some have suggested. Our task is to build and maintain unity in this surge against Bush and the extreme right. We fight for the most advanced demands of our movements center, the most unifying demands against the Right.

And right now, there is unity in struggling within the movement surrounding Barack Obama, especially given the divisive attacks on Obama and the speech of Reverend Jeremiah Wright. This is where the forces of unity are mobilizing.

Labor and people from every walks of life see hope in the Obama presidency, and they see someone who will be responsive to the demands of the broader peoples movement more so than Wall Street. This was exemplified when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi got a letter from big Democratic donors demanding she take back her support of Super Delegates switching their votes based on their Districts.

Its not simply that Obama is a great leader. It is the recognition of the key role between leaders and the movements they represent. The Clinton campaign made some divisive remarks earlier this year, claiming that even Dr Martin Luther King needed a Lyndon B Johnson. What was missed in this remark, which was designed to de-legitimize Obama as more of a great speaker and repeater of rhetoric than a great leaderwas the fact that the movement benefited in having a president that would take a phone call from Martin Luther King, and President Johnson benefited from taking that call.

Forget that little red phone commercial! The united front of American workers, Black communities, immigrants, women, and youth needs a president that will answer the phone when we call.

You might ask yourself how Smiley could possibly give a report like this when our policy is not to endorse any candidate outside of the Communist Party and YCL. You might even think that this is an over-simplification.

Its true. We do not endorse Obama or any other presidential candidate.

And the post-election struggle will probably be more complicated than it is now.

Now I have said a lot about the campaign of Barack Obama. But there is one thing I do not want to get lost in this discussion.

Even if Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, the Ultra-right will suffer a massive defeat.

A Clinton Administration would still govern to the Left of McCain, and arguably further to the Left of the first Clinton Administration. By necessity, it would be more beholden to the will of our movement. Even if the Wall Street interests within the Democratic Party would rather see Clinton over Obama, they dont want to see a landslide victory of either. They want business as usual, and a landslide victory would be a mandate for change.

Therefore, a landslide victory by either Obama or Clinton would be a striking blow against racism and sexism in the United States; it would be a blow against the Ultra-right. We have to make this clear, especially if Clinton wins, in order to ensure unity against McCain and the extreme right wing.

The enemy for us remains the extreme right, and it is our responsibility to build unity in the struggle against them. If we stick to this, the McCain supporters will eventually join us. If we hold unity above all else in our discussions, it will not be as difficult for us to win Clinton supporters over to Obama if he wins the nomination and vice versa if Clinton manages to pull it off.

This election is not about progressive Democrats vs Blue dogs, and it isnt even about how progressive Barack Obama is or can be. This election is about an overwhelming majority of Americans frustration with the direction the Ultra-right has taken our country into. This election is about turning a corner in the fights for working people. And working people understand we can do that best with a Democratic majority in Congress and a Democratic president.

Isn’t this one interesting. Completely sings Obama’s praises and the power of his campaign while giving the catch phrase, “We do not endorse Obama or any other presidential candidate.” While saying Clinton has some potential, this report is, in my opinion, a clear endorsement of the Obama campaign.

The Communist Party USA’s publication “Peoples World” published an article on every union endorsement for Obama throughout the election, heres a link to the Search Page, there’s too many to post.

Then came this report

A Landslide Mandate For Change – Report to the National Committee Meeting 11/15/08

Congratulations on an extraordinary history making election!

We can think back with pride to decades of hard work toward our strategic goal of a big enough, broad enough and united enough labor and all-peoples movement that could overcome the ultra-right blockage to all progress. That all peoples movement has come to life, it is dynamic and it has the potential to keep growing.

The election of Barack Obama and a strengthened Congress creates new conditions in our country. There is now the possibility to shift gears and move forward. This new day requires us to further develop our tactics in order to continue to deepen and broaden labor and peoples unity.

There are thousands of experiences that we all have had in these momentous days, some large, some small, all of which express the enormity of change in thinking and readiness for involvement that is underway and that steels us for the battles ahead.

The tears of joy we all shared as crowds gathered to watch the election results here and throughout the world dramatize the new moment we are in.

Noting that self-identified moderates and liberals agree with Obamas program, Robert Borosage concludes that this election marks the consolidation of a new majority coalition, and the mandate provided for progressive reform….in what is, increasingly, a center-left nation.

The beginnings of a qualitative shift took place in the 2006 Congressional elections. The broader movement that emerged this year around Obama represents the biggest progressive ideological shift since the 1930’s. The rejection of red baiting, racism, and tax baiting against Obama by the voters shows a new majority in opposition to basic Republican right wing ideology.

People are angry, hopeful and ready to go. Our program to rebuild America should be strong and decisive. There is no other way to meet the emergency needs of this moment as the economic crisis spirals through every sector. We should call for taking the profits out of health care and energy which are basic human rights, and explore public ownership including of the finance and automotive industries .

This was a transformative election for many reasons. The vote for Barack Obama and the conversation on race which he opened up at Independence Hall. The rejection of 30 years of ultra-right horror. The emergence of new grass roots involvement and participation and a shift in thinking. The leading role of the multi-racial labor movement. A renewed respect for our Party and some growth. All point to the process of a rising consciousness and struggle for democracy and equality. All are part of moving forward the progressive arc of history.

As Obama said in his acceptance speech, ‘This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change.’

And so the hard work begins. Obama is going to include many people in his cabinet and advisors that we would not pick, but protesting that will not build a movement. Our energy and focus should be invested in building the labor and peoples broad movement at the grass roots. That is how we can give a constructive push in a united way.

They were clearly overjoyed with the Obama victory and instantly sought to promote Communist solutions with Obama’s Presidency. The only dissent was on perceived future cabinet picks not on resistance to Communism. Whether or not they ever said that they endorsed Obama really doesn’t matter, they were clearly behind him throughout the campaign.

Recent Entries »