rich, white guys who deep down are still very racially prejudiced.

The super rich won't feel any obligation. They take what is handed to them because they think they deserve it and feel no obligation to reciprocate at all.

more wealth, not some obligation to reciprocate at all. We need to break the mold that supports this mess.

well, a big part of it anyway.

supported him for president twice. In those rarified circles there really is not a lot of racist sentiment. At least that was true 25-30 years ago when I was exposed to those circles. I'm sure its even truer now. Money and power are far more important to those folks. I'm speaking, btw, specifically of the Wall Street types.

treated by the southern politicians and how the southern governors are trying to destroy the ACA. Those descendants of plantation owners haven't forgotten.

As you can see from the following map,
this problem is in no way limited to "The South".

are from the South. It's in the news.

It disputes your claims and pre-conceived notions.
Scott Walker and Wisconsin are now part of The South?

the first black president in your stable, along with the future first female president, the slickest president, the dumbest president ever and his Poppy. This list does not include the one mostly honorable former president. Notice, there are a lot of the same last names here. Why doesn't that bother anyone?

supporters, but they are gobsmacked by this, because even loyalty to your peeps shouldn't be an influence on something this critically important.

Obama can be cruelly callous at times. Maybe he just doesn't care about what this will do to the Democratic Party.

Family foundation b.s. charity aka legal, tax deductible bribery/money laundering?

But everybody has to make a living...

Right?

It's his retirement plan.

since he will not be running again. If he gets this passed, Hillary will not have to take the blame for it when/if she gets to be the next president. This allows Hillary to stay vague whether or not she supports it. If it passes and she is elected, she can just say its a binding trade agreement that she has to adhere to. If it does not pass, then she would be faced with having to make the decision whether or not to get behind it.

That's all they care about really. They would not admit it, cannot even admit it to themselves. But that is the way certain people work.

That is one of the reasons I am supporting Bernie. If we elect Hillary, she will just naturally be good to her friends, the people who put her where she is. Robert Rubin and his clique are not the only ones. It's human nature. It isn't a Hillary fault. It isn't even her fault.

Elizabeth Warren explained this in her book, A Fighting Chance:

"It was a long dinner . . . .

Late in the evening, Larry (Summers) leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice. By now, I'd lost count of Larry's Diet cokes, and our table was strewn with bits of food and spilled sauces. Larry's tone was in the friendly-advice category. He teed it up this way. I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don't listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of acess and a chance to push their ideas. People -- powerful people -- listen to what they have to say. But insiders also unerstand one unbreakable rule. They don't criticize other insiders.

I had been warned."

Warren, Elizabeth, A Fighting Chance, (Metropolitan Books, 2014) p. 106.

This is what is so dangerous about Hillary's potential election (or Jeb's or any of the Republicans). Hillary and the rest of them are "inside" some clique, maybe cliques, or another. And they have to stay inside to get re-elected. They don't know how to get compromises or work done unless they work within and with their clique. That's called friendship. Some Germans call it Freundlewirtschaft. It's a system, a sort of economic system or means to get advantages by developing a network of friends. Another word for it is corruption. It's kind of the modern-day Boss Tweed situation.

Those, like the Clintons and Rubin and Obama, etc. (most politicians) who get things done by working within these cliques don't know how and don't want to learn how to work with movement or grass-roots politics. They make a show of working with us in the grass-roots, but that is not, once they are in office, how they get things done.

Hillary's speech yesterday was interesting to me because her view on the president's job was clearly what I am describing above. Volunteer for my campaign. Elect me. And then I will work with Congress, etc.

Contrast that with Bernie Sanders' approach: he says he can only win and govern if we out here, we nonentity, little people, we who are essentially outsiders to the Clinton and Republican insider groups, we form a movement and press Congress and all of the insiders to govern as we need and want.

Bernie is an outsider, and he is appealing to us outsiders to gather ourselves together, organize and express our political will.

I hope I am explaining this well because this is THE CRUCIAL DIFFERENCE between the visions on governance and democracy between the two candidates.

I think that in this age of the internet, we are ready for a step forward toward a more participatory democracy. And Bernie, with his experience in the Vermont town hall meetings and discussions that involve citizen participation is the person, with technical assistance, to put us on the road to this participatory democracy. To me that is even more important than the precise program proposals that Bernie is making (although I like those too). We are confronted now in the 2016 primary with a decision. What kind of government do we want? Do we want to continue to have a government of insiders which is easily dominated by the wealthy and socially adept and clever? Or do we want a democracy in which our voices can at least be heard as part of groups that discuss and ultimately have input on the decisions.

Cause at this time, as we see with Obama and the TPP, we are not getting much attention. It's the insiders who are ruling this country, not the people.

Hillary is an insider. She virtually admitted it yesterday. That's why the insiders' club gives to her and to Bill the big bucks.

Bernie is the outsider. He will rely on you and me to pressure Congress and D.C. insiders to govern according to the will of the people. It won't always be what I want. It will be what most Americans want. But it definitely won't be the kind of government we have been getting with the Clintons, the Bushes and their cliques of insiders.

What side are you on?

I am sick of this corrupt bull shit! If Bernie doesn't make it it will hurt to have to vote for her vs. clown car guy, but I will do it. To avoid that I am working like hell to not have to. Normally, the Plutocrats preselect who runs so they win either way. Except here came Bernie, I hope they choke on their champagne if Bernie wins!

From my interaction with Hillary in 1970 I conclude Reich's analysis is flawed due to the complete absence of Hillary in his equation.

and made her self very rich in the process. In my opinion, a person who has taken a fee in excess of half a million bucks from a division of Citigroup does not really qualify as an 'outsider'. She made her money on the inside, as a Republican. So how is she an 'outsider'? Because she says so, and cites this talk she had? The world's richest, most connected and perhaps highest placed person to ever claim outsider status. It's astonishing.

Bernie Sanders, he's an outsider.

NOW. She learned. I hope a lot of DUers learn too.

We were taught one thing in school. We lived that. Now our eyes have been opened by the extent to which the corruption has poisoned our environment, robbed us of meaningful work that pays a living wage and denigrated us to a status that is beneath that of our hard-working parents.

We all have to learn what Elizabeth Warren learned.

If you read her book, you will find out that Elizabeth Warren researched why people go bankrupt. Based on that work, on the discovery that people who have to declare bankruptcy are not the do-nothing, no-good people that society thinks they are but rather are often people who were cheated, had bad luck or who took a personal but reasonable risk and lost.

Elizabeth Warren has written several books.

Most people have worked for a corporation at some point in their life. She is brilliant and has a lot of expertise -- a professor at Harvard Law School only gets that job because he or she has unusual talent and works unusually hard. We don't criticize our favorite rock stars because they work for corporations. But many of them do. Doesn't mean they agreed with the corporation on all issues.

Up and leading.

Only have one thing to say, excellent!

behind the scene. I think this time he has hit the nail on the head. But I think he had to have been half way there before he was elected the first time if he is listening to Rubin.

Forgot about the Froman connection,someone posted the Rubin,Froman,and Clinton connection way back in the wind down of Billy's days in office.. Also there was a thread about this Guy and his relationship with Obama. And as most folks know,College Buds tend to take care of one another.

now, and in the future.

TPP has been in the works since Bush was president.

...gets passed and he leaves office. So, follow the money seems right to me. Why else would Obama spend so much to get this horrendous TPP passed.

would sell out his whole party for a job when he leaves office. I'm sorry but I don't see the Obamas as the same money grubbing, wealth chasers that you do. But I could be wrong and time will tell. Having both come from very humble beginnings, I don't see Barrack and Michelle as the attention seeking, wealth chasers that you seem to imply they would have to be to sell out the working class for a trade agreement he knew was stacked against them. Having been the victims of 8 years of the most vile racist attacks, I think the Obama's would be fine with him taking a job in academia, and her one at a law firm, and the two of them riding off into the sunset. I don't think that neither of them desires a permanent place on the world stage that Bill Clinton had, or the desire to run for the White House in her own right as Hillary did. I see them as more like George W. Bush and Laura, who would love to just have their privacy back, live out a comfortable life out of the limelight, and let history be the judge of his presidency.

Maybe, just maybe Obama truly believes what he says; that a trade deal will happen in the Pacific with our without the US and he thinks that it is better to be a part of drafting and influencing the terms of that agreement than leaving it to someone else.

Or: The more sinister side of me thinks that he didn't want the agreement in the first place, didn't want to hurt the Democrats, but had to go through the motions, making sure that they tried to get the best terms favorable to the US, and then let the Republican led both Houses of Congress take the responsibility for its passage or failure to do so. He's not running again, but the Congress is. He wasn't going to force Democrats to put their necks on the line for a bill that benefits the GOP and their ilk while it stands to cost workers here jobs and Democrats votes. If the GOP wants the trade bill, than they hold the majority in both Houses, let them pass it and take responsibility for it. I think's its Genius.

What part of DIDN"T BELIEVE didn't you understand?

I'd guess what they'll do after he leaves office would be what you've described. Somehow I just don't see them as "money grubbing wealth chasers" when they return to private life. They'll be quite comfortable - which I hope, considering the meanness and hostility and racism and just general bagger bullshit they've had to put up with during his Presidency.

Wealth chasing is all the Third Way does. But it's not just about money, it's connections.

and ftr, I don't see them that way either, but haters gonna hate, and seems to me, there's way too much of that on here, a supposed dem website.


http://uspolitics.about.com/od/presidenc1/tp/What-Barack-Obama-Will-Do-After-Being-President.htm

snip//

Obama was asked what he'd do after his second term was over, and he said he wanted to teach. “You know, in a post-presidency, the thing that I think I would enjoy most is spending time working with kids. I love teaching, I miss teaching, and you know, I’m not sure it would necessarily be in a classroom, but the idea of being able to go around in various cities and helping to create mentorships, and apprenticeships, giving young people the sense of possibility and opportunity, and using whatever spotlight I can shine to show how much incredible talent there is out there,” Obama said.

Even Obama's enemies don't think he is stupid.

Many on the right and some on the left think he acts to accumulate more power and more money either now or later.

Or he could believe (rightly or wrongly depending on whether you agree with him or not, I suppose) that TPP is good policy in the long run.

even though the House & Senate is held by Republicans.

For some reason, Americans never make it that far in their reasoning or History.
If Obama was President....then its ALL his baby.

There is some validity to this belief.
The President can VETO anything that crosses his desk,
so when he signs a horrible bill (like Welfare Reform) it DOES become his baby.

I have seen the absolute puzzlement so many times of "How could Obama do this?" And if one looks at the people in his background and current circle, it all become very easy to explain. People see his brown skin and assume he was born a "poor black child" who lifted himself up by his bootstraps and became president. But nothing could be further from the truth.

over Asia the way we took over the Americas. Economically they are becoming the powerhouse throughout all of Asia and much of Africa. I assume that the president is trying to get structure in place before we are completely shut out of trade with those areas. I spend a lot of time in SE Asia and can't believe how fast the Chinese are changing it.

I also think that he and the Clintons actually believe in lifting people up all over the world, not just here. The only way to prevent wars, etc., is to level the playing field for everyone. I suspect they don't just talk the talk about helping poor countries to develop but they actually believe in the cause.

Just my opinion.

to use this as an opportunity to allow multinational corporations to effectively destroy what's left of the gains that American liberals / progressives have made in the last century in terms of the welfare of the American people. Do you want to go back to 1899 in terms of living standards? This is what this trade deal can allow to happen.

Maybe we shouldn't have sent all of our Major Manufacturing to China, including the Tool & Die Industry.

Ya Think?

Thanks, Bill.

Precisely because of the labor and environmental protections that involves.

That's where most of our jobs that went overseas went, along with India (which is in the same boat).

The TPP is an attempt to get some bit of the Asian market, on something closer to our terms, before China eats it all

Or should I say, those horses

Why you prefer that model, I have no idea.

I'm pushing for FAIR trade, not "FREE" trade. TPP does NOT do that. TPP is pushing FORCED trade-- you MUST buy XXX thousand tons of rice from us. You must buy XXX thousand tons of corn from us. You MUST let our corporations get involved in your public works sector. If your environmental and public health policies won't let our corporations make a profit, we will sue you.

Screw that model and the fetid horse it rode in on.

(as everyone is) but I don't believe that the President would sell us out just so he can get big speaking fees when his term is over. If Michelle was running for office or appointed a crucial post, then I can see the speaking fees thing for influence, maybe, but not really. I don't think Obama is underhanded and greedy like that. We will see.

I also believe that Warren and all the critics have the right to contest the TPP and the President's stand because some of that stuff I have been reading is down right frightening. I don't have to hate one and love the other. A good and respectful debate should always be welcome, that is how we learn things and choose for ourselves how we stand on issues.

Glad you're here! Good points you make, except I doubt Michelle Obama would sell anybody out for high speaking fees, either. If she were to be paid a high fee, it wouldn't surprise me to see it go to some sort of charitable concern. I would totally not expect that of her husband, either. His track record is too slanted toward altruism.

At any rate - I think I'd be more inclined to inquire - if there's some big speaking fee or some such remuneration - WHAT DID THE PAYEE DO WITH THAT MONEY? Did it go toward helping others who seriously need help and can't afford to come by it otherwise? Helping the needy maybe? Funding a program or a foundation or some other entity or activity or campaign of someone who was focused on HELPING those not necessarily in or near the 1%?????? Or did they just pad their bank account so they could buy a seventh or eighth luxury getaway home or that nice new car elevator or their nice new mistress, or hide it in the Caymans or use it to take over another company and lay people off for sheer profit's sake? The most important question, I think, would be - WHAT DID THEY DO WITH THAT MONEY?

Of course you are right about the Obamas. I think they are odd ducks for the big politics world in the fact they aren't schmoozers and takers and that is why the DC party group scene is avoided by them.

And you are right about the money, too. It all depends what you do with it in the end. If I recall, the Obamas are very generous to charities according to their income tax returns.

believe the president is doing this for some personal financial gain. I do believe he thinks it's the right way to go. Lots of folks saying it's too late for us since China has already conquered Asia but that's not entirely true. The Clintons and the Obamas believe in floating all boats, not just the rich. Perhaps this isn't as good a trade deal as we should have but I certainly don't believe Obama is doing this in order to screw the American people. Just my personal take.

rough waters, and taking on more than we can bail. By the time the uninformed get it, it will be too late. Social Security, healthcare, jobs, welfare and just about everything else will suffer.

I'd say it does the opposite, based upon the world's experience with corporations.

Where corporations just do whatever the hell they want with no WTO oversight.

TPP bestows even more power to corporations. Just who do you think you're kidding about this?

Among other things, it's going to push for privatization of public utilities, with no chance to get them back into the public sector.

And ISDS is going to allow corporations to virtually dictate members' environmental and public health policies.

It's absolutely crazy how much they changed the city in just a decade.

he genuinely thinks it's a good idea. For all the good reasons. It doesn't sound very good to me, but I think he's playing a long game all the time and this would be part of it according to his best judgment. I think the same of Hillary Clinton, too, considering her background and how she's worked for the welfare, protection, and betterment of women and children all over the US AND all over the world, since she first started working, and first heard Marion Wright Edelman speak (and wanted to go work for her).

just the American people. They think globally and I believe Obama is doing what he thinks will benefit the world's population (and of course ultimately all of us) in trying to pull other countries up out of poverty. The Obamas and the Clintons aren't just giving lip service to it.

The US Chamber Of Commerce, and all the republican front groups are spending millions of dollars lobbying for TPP just to benefit poor people?

help people all over the world. I'm sorry but I just don't see him as a greedy, evil person working for the 1%. I think he's just as concerned about the working poor other places as here and sees lifting all boats as a way to provide security for the whole world. I truly believe both he and Bill Clinton are global thinkers.

economy needs real things--resources and manufacturing--to turn into futures

problem is it'll always need more since now it has all of capitalism's problems multiplied a hundredfold; so the quadrillions and soon quintillions of "money" "made" in the past decade will lose their backing (though technically it'd just empty out the Caymans rather than do too much with the onshore bank dollars we use to buy cheesecake and rum)

Who should be more important to Obama?

Obama got a lot of his support from people in Hollywood and others who would benefit from provisions of the TPP.

Overall, though, I find the question in the OP's subject line a hard one to answer. I appreciate your sharing Reich's thoughts. That personal connection is probably one of the factors involved.

I'm inclined to doubt that Obama is motivated to any significant degree by the prospect of higher speaking fees after he leaves office. Even without TPP, he'll have plenty of chances to make plenty of money.

Don't laugh, it's happened before, ya know.

Quelle surprise!

Two reasons:

He really does believe in the particulars of the deal.

He also sees it as securing a part of his legacy that has thus far eluded him: a major bipartisan legislative success, and this is his last chance at it. You may laugh, but that 2004 speech is still near and dear to his heart. I think it's an Ahab-like quest, but there it is.

Money? What a big joke that theory is. His memoirs alone will bring in at least $15 million and he has already said he'd like to focus on children with his post-presidency work. Major bucks there! Not to mention the obvious TPP tie-ins...

..then it will hang around his neck like a Albatross, and rightly so.
Ask Bill about his NAFTA legacy.

Bill's NAFTA "legacy" and MFN for China ("Free Trade&quot did more economic damage to America's Working Class than anything else in the last century.
NOW, its Obama's turn.

He doesn't care. And I'm sure he could run circles around anyone who says it's NAFTA II.

I do think, in his eagerness to get this done, he has offended the wrong people in our party. And it doesn't bother me at all that he's struggling with it and the treaty is on life support. The question I'm responding to is why he has pushed it so hard.

It's all bad in every way.

Obama is either blind to this, buying into a false narrative handed
to him by his .. ermm .. corporate handlers.

Or else he really is that callous and greedy.

that would make anyone believe differently? He is just an Emanuel/Prisker/Summers/Rubin/Daley style economics Democrat.

he believes in Reaganesque "Trickle Down" VooDoo Economics.

The group that gave us Voodoo Economics.

from the Koch Brother's, Goldman Sach's and other corporate mafia celebs.???

Froman remained at Citigroup until Obama tapped him to be U.S. Trade Representative. (Froman did well at the bank, receiving more than $7.4 million from January 2008 to 2009 alone.)

That's interesting; I hadn't considered that aspect of it.

If true, this would help eliminate the advantage that corporations get from using super-cheap foreign sweatshops, for example.



======================

For exactly that reason.

there is not a doubt in my mind

could get this done is by grovelling at the feet of McTurtle and Boner/Ryan, three people who tried for years to sink him. He had to completely abandon the Dem wing of the party. Besides, how much political capital can he have after the midterms?

Second, I think that the transnationals want to get this done before the pitchforks come out. If we actually knew the entirety of this monstrosity, civil unrest might (finally) erupt.

Third, he wants to be one of the honorary Bush's after Jan 2017. This is probably not that importatn since he's locked up that job anyway with fracking, offshore drilling, ANWR drilling, race to the bottom, and heritage care.

And signing the agreement gives us more benefits than not.

and TPP is not NAFTA.