Good that there will be live-streaming (and, hopefully, also video and/or transcript, via state.gov).

An around-the-world trip in less than a week:
Iraq and Afghanistan late last week (narrowly escaping an attempted attack in Kabul on Saturday:http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/10/politics/kerry-afghanistan-taliban-rockets/index.html), then Japan, then L.A.
Does the man ever sleep?

...sleeps. I think he's on a mission, to use my daughters' words.
I'm really glad he got out of Kabul safely. 🇺🇸

Without question, this is his vocation - not merely a career. He is in this for something larger than himself.
In this age of power-hungry, greedy, or just plain insane politicians, it is so reassuring to know that statesmen like Kerry are out there.

...Pacific Council.

https://www.pacificcouncil.org/live

...to this speech. Pretty sure he will put all our Presidential candidates to shame.

Right now, Kerry is making what I consider to be a persuasive and rational case for the TPP. I realize that it's not fashionable to say so on this board, but Obama's and Kerry's arguments for the TPP make sense to me.

...popular here. I think he did a good job of making the case that..long term..it is correct policy. He also made clear that he understands the shorter term challenges it may impose on labor. I think that is where the difficulty lies.
I do agree that globalization is not a choice, it is here. The choice is how best to use the challenges it brings for the long term benefit of our country.
A very good speech. Quite the contrast with Trump's on the USS Iowa..my dad's old ship here in California.

In fact, I have had a problem with Bernie's genuine rejection of all trade pacts and Hillary's likely political rejection of them. There were problems with many early trade pacts in that they did nothing to try to raise the level of workers' rights or environmental standards elsewhere -- as they could.

However, I think that almost all of the things that people here - including Bernie -- attribute to trade pacts is really due to globalization becoming easier and easier. In a way, that upsets the balance between employers and employees. If you look over time, there have been swings in the level of power each side had. At the point of the industrial revolution, thousands left the country side - many forced out - providing huge pools of potential laborers for the new industries. More workers than needed - so it was easy for employers to keep wages down. Unions were the antidote because they couldn't (usually) replace all of them. In the US, there were times when legislation strengthened and when legislation weakened the power of unions.

When Bernie spoke of the trade deals harming people in Michigan, he ignored that long before any trade deals, Michigan lost a huge number of jobs that fled to the non union Southern states. After that, still before the trade deals, manufacturing jobs fled to countries with cheap labor. If the cost of shipping back the product and any extra costs doing the manufacturing remotely and any tariffs were sufficiently lower than the extra wages and costs to produce here, businesses could and did chose to move jobs. (Here, using the tax code to give breaks to companies operating in the US could, if the gap was small enough, save the jobs.)

The company that my husband worked for produced women's dresses, manufactured in many countries including Sri Lanka. When our daughter studied there in her semester abroad we visited her and we were invited by the company to tour it when there. The US had no trade pact with Sri Lanka, but the wages - reasonable for Sri Lanka allowed them to produce dresses far more cheaply than could be done in the US. One interesting thing was as you entered the large airy room where things were made, there was a prominent sign that included a list of commitments to workers that company made that was required by many US companies before they would sign contracts with them. We were told this came about because of consumers who demanded those commitments. Even if every trade pact was overturned, there is no reason to think that many jobs will return. None of the main competitors to this company produce dresses in the US.

In fact, it likely is that world trade itself - including the trade pacts - can be a force for improving standards in the other countries.

At this point, I do not know who to believe on whether the current agreements improve the status quo, change nothing, or make things worse. It is true that more recent trade agreements have workers rights and environmental provisions that NAFTA and CAFTA do not. Both Obama and Kerry are making the case that they are helpful, but others like Warren, who I also trust, are saying that they actually are harmful. I hope that there are open hearings to really hear what the agreements entail. Until then, I will be uncomfortable when Bernie rants against them on principle and when HRC suggests she was always against them. I honestly do not know which is worse - an honest, but maybe naive rejection or a politically motivated finger in the wind rejection of what really was - until it was clear that it was toxic in a Democratic primary - her biggest accomplishment as Secretary of State.

And, yes, hard for me also to choose what's worse - naive, black vs white rejection of trade deals on principle (I personally don't think that TPP is a black or white matter, and I am persuaded by Obama's and Kerry's arguments), or finger-in-the-political wind change of heart (a change of opinion whose sincerity is appropriately open to question).

I hope that the agreement really is as good as Kerry is saying, but I have no doubt that he has studied it and that his comments are his honest opinion.

trust that both Kerry and Obama have genuinely thought this through. I too hope that it turns out to be as good as hoped . (There's also the issue of the number of countries that have already signed on, and the credibility we would lose if we pulled out now. And I agree with their argument that we get a better deal this way than if we just did nothing and, through our inaction, let China implicitly set the terms of trade instead).

I am glad that years ago, I took Tay Tay's advice and read his comments on NAFTA on the Senate floor. Later, I listened to his questions and comments at hearings of the Commerce and Finance committee when issues like this were spoken of. I can think of no US politician who has been better in explaining this complex issue seriously, without pandering.

Such an apt description of Sec. Kerry and his career overall.
For our country's sake, I wish this were not such a rare quality!