and I've been hating all the stridency
If it were any other president, especially if it were a Republican president (or a less worker-friendly Democrat), I could understand the skepticism more. But undermining Obama would just leave it for some other country (say, China, as Obama mentioned) or some future administration to settle the agreement their way. Among those choices, Obama is easily my favorite option for trade negotiator.
Ruth Marcus wrote an interesting column in today's Washington Post. I don't buy 100% of her piece, but I do agree with her that many of the objections to TPP are based on less than solid foundation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-phony-argument/2015/05/19/85c3a026-fe4c-11e4-805c-c3f407e5a9e9_story.html
Some sample excerpts
This is not secrecy for secrecy’s sake; it’s secrecy for the sake of negotiating advantage. Exposing U.S. bargaining positions or the offers of foreign counterparts to public view before the agreement is completed would undermine the outcome. Indeed, extracting the maximum concessions from other countries may not be possible until after Congress grants the fast-track authority to convince foreign competitors that the agreement has a shot. The labor leaders who decry this backroom deal wouldn’t want their collective bargaining negotiations conducted in the public glare... .
. . .
So what about those corporate lobbyists writing the deal behind closed doors? Well, the working groups were established by congressional fiat. The Obama administration has moved to expand the membership to include representatives of labor and environmental groups. It tried to kick lobbyists off — until it was sued for doing so.
As to Warren’s complaint that Bush released the text of a previous trade agreement, the countries involved in the Free Trade Area of the Americas agreed to make initial proposals public. This disclosure was a departure, not the norm — and, by the way, the deal fizzled.
= new reply since forum marked as read