It will however point out a lot of hypocrisy.

We are The World. All of us.

Good luck DU!

DU isolationists don't like to be called isolationists.

The polite term is non-interventionism.

DU imperialists don't like to be called imperialists.

The polite term is internationalist.

FDR didn't care if he was called interventionist, imperialist or simply a realist.

I doubt many others care about bumper-sticker labels either... except those who rely on bumper stickers for their knowledge.

Many of our "friends," particularly in the Mideast, aren't. They are commercial trading partners, some of whom provide bulk energy supplies and have huge investments in U.S. based multinationals, real estate, and defense industries, while others are economic dependencies. Both types routinely intervene in the US political process, in their own ways, and regularly threaten us with dire consequences if we don't indulge their mutual paranoia about terrorist factions supported by the other. They are not our friends, but not entirely our enemies.

To label and treat them as either one or the other has been the source of decades of lethal mistakes and miscalculation.

To be more cautious and to demand accountability from both is not Isolationist. It is self-preservationist.

it seems to me those with the most to gain are for it and those who will lose are opposed. That is not news.
But trade has many dimensions.
The TPP is more about corporate control over countries than it is about trade. So saying you are opposed to the TPP is more about opposing corporate control than it is about opposing trade.
If the OP is calling the TPP merely trade it is dishonest I think.

Participation in, and building of, international institutions, and the rule of law is required.

The mood of the country is not to isolationism, but a retreat from attempting to be the sole imperial power lording it over others.

FALSE DICHOTOMY.

The United States should participate in world bodies that establish treaties and negotiate for peace around the world (like the United Nations). The United States should also participate in mutually beneficial international trade that causes no harm to Americans.

The United States should NOT send it's armies to kill brown people around the world to further our "foreign policy" or enrich the 1%. The United States should NOT sign trade treaties that only "trade" general economic security to improve the profit margins of America's wealthiest people.

allies, that expand corporate rights and increase there power and influence, does not make one an isolationist. Shockingly, there are orher models for free trade.

with regard to certain areas of the planet

None of those should be isolated from the planning of international agreements between nations. Any trade agreement that excludes small business, labor, peace makers and earth scientists should be automatically rejected on the grounds that big business alone[font size=1], and a bunch of people we oddly call "brilliant" for winning popularity contests, [/font]can not possibly be qualified to tackle all the issues that need to be addressed by such agreements.

A nation's self-interest should be defined by the interests of a majority of its people, not the majority of its corporations, elite few, and especially anyone outside our borders.

Everything we do should have a net positive benefit to our nation's people to justify any actions we take on an international scale.

...and more "fair trade". Not to be confused with "free trade".