or does "move through their domestic processes" sound like a bowel movement?

and how PROUD they are of how much obstructionism he's overcome (forgetting that his DNC pick let the GOP take Congress)

he can do whatever he likes: as much as we denounce TPP/TISA our actions show our words are worthless

WTF is wrong with his brain on this?

I don't know why Obama is so anxious to trash what remains of his "legacy" with his support for this piece of shit, but it is amusing to watch him put Clinton between a rock and a hard place by reiterating his advocacy while she is out on the campaign trail claiming to "oppose" it.

He has been given his marching orders and no choice in the matter

But, not on the TPP. He expects us to accept it based upon his judgment and word.

He literally tells us that the TPP is "progressive." I call it "disastrous" for the working people all over the world.

To those people who adore him, and there are many on the DU, it gives him political capital, and this is how he chooses to spend it.

Video: Joseph Stiglitz on the TPP.

I wonder why he's doing it? His corporate ties must be afraid Bernie could win and won't sign it if it comes across his desk, so they're trying to get it a done deal now. Just guessing.

'Liberalisation' means privatization or as they call it in India "Disinvestment" (I think that is a much more accurate term)

So "progressive liberalisation" (the core concept behind the WTO-GATS and TiSA) means "Irreversible Disinvestment"

am reminded of George Harrison's question: "Are we being punished for something we have forgotten to do?"

What have we done to deserve politicians like this (let alone borderline traitorous Republicans), and what does it say about our country?

But Bernie knew.

Like a love child of FDR, LBJ, and JFK!

paid for to look like he was a person of HOPE!
Americans got suckered.

for longer than you might have hoped. All the presidential candidates oppose TPP except for Kasich and Rubio (maybe) who both may be gone by this time next week.

The real question now is what will the next president do. "Renegotiate" again. (The other countries say they won't do that but maybe they will have a change of heart.) Or act unilaterally and withdraw from them. Donald would certainly do the latter (kind of back to the future of the pre-FDR era) so that he would be free to levy tariffs on every country that made him mad. The former is more traditional but is not the 'bold' action that politicians (particularly right wing demagogues) like to brag about.

And if neither renegotiation nor withdrawal happen with the next president, we will have NAFTA and the WTO to complain about for a long time. It won't be the first time. FDR's ITO with its standards on labor rights, business regulation and full employment was shot down by congress leaving us with GATT which became the WTO neither of which had or has those standards.

Congress' motto: If Obama Like, We Hate.

TPP? Me hate, too.

.... there is SOMETHING Obama will fight for.

Like Bernie and Trump.

he or she should devote no political capital whatsoever to such things."

A Protectionist Moment?

Furthermore, as Mark Kleiman sagely observes, the conventional case for trade liberalization relies on the assertion that the government could redistribute income to ensure that everyone wins — but we now have an ideology utterly opposed to such redistribution in full control of one party, and with blocking power against anything but a minor move in that direction by the other.

But it’s also true that much of the elite defense of globalization is basically dishonest: false claims of inevitability, scare tactics (protectionism causes depressions!), vastly exaggerated claims for the benefits of trade liberalization ... I’ve always been clear that the gains from globalization aren’t all that great ... less than 5 percent of world GDP over a generation.

The truth is that if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find it very hard to do anything much about globalization — not because it’s technically or economically impossible, but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements the diplomatic, foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious. ... Trump might actually do it, but only as part of a reign of destruction on many fronts.

But it is fair to say that the case for more trade agreements — including TPP, which hasn’t happened yet — is very, very weak. And if a progressive makes it to the White House, he or she should devote no political capital whatsoever to such things.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/09/a-protectionist-moment/?_r=0