Thoughts: Why is Pres. Obama shoving the TPP down our throats?

[MannyGoldstein]

I can't recall a Democratic President ever hustling so hard to do the opposite of what Congressional Democrats and the conscious Democratic base wants.

I'm guessing that it's some combination of a promise made to one or more rich patrons that want to be even richer, and wanting to be in the record books with a trade deal larger than NAFTA. I don't think he's the type that worries about how much cash he'll make after he leaves office.

[jaysunb]

1. Is it possible that he believes in the benefits or

value of the agreement ??

[Trajan]

5. That is possible

But we may then have to question his judgement, wouldn't we? ...

And we do ....

[Scootaloo]

9. Well, he has a different perspective

His is the perspective of a man who will never in his life panhandle or dumpster-dive.

His is the perspective of a man whose wife will never have to beg $20 off a friend to keep the lights on.

His is the perspective of a man whose children will never have to run three jobs a week for ten years just to break even on student debt.

[Fred Sanders]

15. Of course his perspective as the black child of a (edit) single mother and community organizer is...nothing?

The GOP strategy of getting Democrats to turn on each other is mildly succeeding.

Maybe folks want to start an Obama-Bashing Group?

Obama also never served in the military....what does that prove about his competency as Commander in Chief? Nada.

[Scootaloo]

18. That was then, this is now

He's a very wealthy man, Fred, and his wealth isn't going to lessen when he vacates office. And we already know his fondness for always looking forward, never back.

As for democrats turning on each other? Maybe the democratic president should listen to the democratic legislators, who are speaking with the voices given to them by their democratic constituents.

[Fred Sanders]

19. His small wealth was earned by hard work and sacrifice. He could easily have made much much more.

I do not resent a man his earned wealth, starting from the bottom to rise up.

A Harvard Law grad at the top of his class....can earn a fortune.....but Obama choose to serve. Isn't that the America Dream? Opportunity, equal for all who make the effort?

The Dream Obama often speaks about and wants to offer the opportunity to repeat for all.

[Scootaloo]

30. I don't resent him his wealth. I resent him the fact that it seems to be blocking his view of us.

RFight now, I see two sides.

On one side are congressional democrats, labor unions, human rights groups, and the vox populii, standing against the TPP.

On the other side are congressional republicans (sans support from their constituents, Republican voters hate this thing too) and the President, promoting it.

I have to weigh these two sides.

Either I can assume that suddenly the republicans have turned over a whole new leaf and are throwing behind wonderful, progressive trade legislation that will bring great and amazing improvements to the lives and well-being of everyone in all these nations, and that it's the Democrats et al who have flipped their fucking gourds

Or...

I can assume that the president is wrong on this.

Why would an otherwise brilliant man be so knuckleheadedly wrong about this? Simple, because he wants something out of it. Not necessarily anything that the rest of us want, mind you. He's not thinking about us here. He's thinking about the fact he has less than two years left in office, doesn't need to think about re-election, and he wants a nice influx of post-presidential perks, fetes, and back-scratchings. AFL-CIO probably isn't going to give Sasha a cushy prestigious job - but Citibank might.

[green917]

51. This, exactly this! ^^^

[Fred Sanders]

71. Obama is doing this out of personal greed?? Out of future money prospects? I disagree.

[Human101948]

102. However, he is surrounded by advisers who are corporate cheerleaders...

who are absolutely convinced that this is just what (corporate) America needs to grow and prosper.

[MannyGoldstein]

21. Most of his childhood was spent living in his grandparents house, no?

His grandmother was a well-off bank VP, he attended an elite high school, IIRC?

[hedda_foil]

52. Yes. His white mother's white mother and father.

And he went to the most elite private high school in Hawaii.

[Fred Sanders]

81. Of course having a good education and advancing oneself to minor wealth through hard work and

effort must result in a man who can have no empathy for the working class...despite all evidence to the contrary?

I value education as much as Obama, I thought that was a given on DU, but I get a peculiar vibe from so many folks at DU who seem to not agree, even hostile to higher education.

Education is the universal key to personal success, a key that opens many doors......Obama is the the poster child for that claim.

[truebluegreen]

29. fwiw "white" single mother

But it seems to me that the GOP would have no luck at all getting Democrats to turn on President Obama if President Obama hadn't spent so much of his term pursuing distinctly non-Democratic policies with distinctly non-Democratic appointees.

Bill Clinton pushed for and passed NAFTA--and other non-Democratic policies--and destroyed the Democratic Party for at least a decade. Do you want to do that again? I don't--because I fear that a similar misstep will be for keeps this time, given the GOP success with gerrymandering and voter suppression and so on. If we don't inspire our own people--and others!--we won't win another national election. And we won't deserve to.

[RiverLover]

44. I so agree. All of it.

Thank you. Great post!!

[Fred Sanders]

72. I stand corrected on that. Single white mother, no father figure. Same point.

[xocet]

35. "...black single mother..."? That rhetorical flourish must have seized control of the keyboard. n/t

[Raster]

38. President Obama's Mother - Ann Dunham - WAS NOT BLACK.

[hedda_foil]

49. His mother was white and was married to his father when he was born, as I'm sure you know.

So what are you getting at?

[merrily]

91. Not fer nuttin,

I don't think Dunham ever married Obama. For one thing, Barack Obama, Sr. had a wife in Africa before he ever came to America and he did not divorce her, at least not before the President was born, if ever.

The alleged marriage and alleged divorce get bandied about a lot, but I don't know that either actually occurred. If there was a marriage, was it legal in the US, given he had a wife in Africa at the time?

Plus, when Palin's daughter became pregnant out of wedlock, Obama said families were off limits and referenced his mother, but without explaining why he referenced her in that connection. I thought it was because she, too, had been a teen who had become pregnant out of wedlock.

I don't think it's relevant to discussion of the TPP or even to discussion of what kind of outlook the President grew up with.

To me, this is exactly the kind of derailing a thread gets when people who are not "like minded" with members of this group, like Fred Sanders, barge into the group to defend Obama's reputation, whether it's relevant to the thread or not. Sigh.

[BeanMusical]

64. Nice fairytale.

[JoePhilly]

76. That group exists, its called GD.

[Fred Sanders]

80. Indeed. But there appear to be multiple Obama Bashing groups......not that it matters a wit.

Suggestion withdrawn.

[merrily]

94. GD and many other forums are the places on this board for posts like the ones you

and Fred Sanders have been making on this thread. However, they are out of place on this forum and, as to this thread about the TPP, both OT disruptive. But you both knew that.

[Enthusiast]

67. I cannot believe that. He acknowledged the damage done by NAFTA.

He knows this would damage the American worker and our standard of living. I don't think he gives a single fuck.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Fred Sanders]

73. Sure, twice elected community organizer/intellectual that is the single body standing in the way of out and out

fascism in America...is the enemy....you go with that! The GOP says the same.

[Enthusiast]

75. I won't go with your words in my mouth. The GOP does not say the same.

The GOP loved NAFTA and love the TPP.

The President in his support of the TPP would hand over more power to the corporations. That much is undeniable.

[merrily]

95. Please see Reply 94.

[merrily]

92. Great point and great graphic.

[msongs]

2. reminds me of the full court press he ran to strengthen social security...oh wait. never mind nt

[Trajan]

7. +1,000,000 ....

[Omaha Steve]

20. Well he did offer a Social Security cut in a budget

And the Republicans didn't ask for it. OOPS!

[merrily]

93. He put cuts to Social Security AND Medicare on the table without being asked.

Bubba told Ryan to call him if he (Ryan) needed help with Democrats re: Medicare.

Bubba also ended welfare as we know it.

Before his inauguration, Obama said entitlements had to be cut.

The first budget he sent to Congress included cuts to fuel subsidies for the poor.

New Democrats are not exactly the best friends the needy ever had in government.

[thesquanderer]

24. Yup, like when he went to the mat for a "robust public option" in the ACA... (n/t)

[frylock]

36. this is different. back then, we were told he simply didn't have the votes..

oh, wait.....

[raindaddy]

39. Well...He fought his ass off to keep his promise to end Bush tax cuts for billionaires...

Didn't he????

[Enthusiast]

77. Chained CPI was going to strengthen Social Security!

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[merrily]

96. But weaken its recipients, who do not have enough to eat as it is.

Getting rid of the "surplus population" as Dickens called it, would certainly strengthen Social Security.

[enough]

3. This is such a good question, Manny. Along with that I wonder over and over,

if he actually believes this is best for our society, WHY doesn't he address the questions people have: 1) What about the abdication of sovereignty to corporations via the 3-judge panels? 2) Why the secrecy?

It really bothers me that he is not stepping up and answering these questions directly.

[PSPS]

10. It's obvious to everyone except the few remaining swooners

He can't "step up and answer these questions directly" because it would amount to him openly admitting and saying, "Yes, I'm a fraud and I'm president only for the top 0.01%. Glad you liked my speeches, suckers!"

[840high]

16. Yep

[merrily]

97. Would a speech about it really help?

[DonCoquixote]

4. because he needs it to be a done deal

before Hillary has to answer for it during the campaign.

[antigop]

6. yep. nt

[truebluegreen]

32. "...she needs it to be a done deal...."

Fixed it for ya.

[DonCoquixote]

84. I glady thank ye

and now that fast track died, let's see how she tries to sell this turd on the campaign trail.

[truebluegreen]

85. It would be interesting to see her try

but I think she will continue to duck the issue--it can only hurt her on the campaign trail.

[DonCoquixote]

86. her main strategy is to duck everything

the problem is, of course, when you play to preserve a lead rather than score goals, you lose. Now, it is not that she is the worst, and the fact she is talking about getting rid of citizens united says she has some clues, but she is waaaay too surrounded by the people who either function as Yes men, or worse, the people making sure she never looks left.

It's not the con artists that do the most damage, it is the people who sincerely believe that their snake oil is the best cure all out there, and both Obama and Hillary have swallowed this. because they really DO believe this, they will dump the poison into our well thinking it will cure us, while those who know it won;t will sit back and wait to sell our corpses to China to make cat food.

[truebluegreen]

88. I have thought for a long time that the biggest danger to us

is the moderates. Their devotion to incrementalism in the face of dire circumstances, their unwillingness to rock the boat, their bold defense of the status quo in the face of insanity have led us to, and over, the brink of disaster on so many fronts.

Time for some revolutionaries--Go Bernie Go!--and how pathetic is it that an FDR Democrat could be considered such.

[merrily]

106. How is TPP moderate for a Democrat? How is putting Social Security and Medicare on the table

"moderate" for a Democrat? How was eliminating welfare and the protections of Glass Steagall "moderate" for a Democrat? How is identifying with Republicans from the Reagan era "moderate" for a Democrat?

New Democrats are not moderate Democrats.

[truebluegreen]

108. You mistake me.

Clearly I should have put "moderate" in scare quotes: imo "moderate" / New Democrats are not Democrats at all.

[merrily]

110. Thanks. Quotaton marks make the difference.

[merrily]

105. The Party needs it to be a done deal. And then the primary will distract from it

and we can all move on. Or they'll manufacture something else that will distract from it. And, in the fullness of time, the story will become that the Republican House and Senate did this. Much as any discussion of Gramm, Leach, Bliley has to got through about ten steps about Republicans before we get to the fact that Bubba and his White House, like Summers and Sperling, lobbied hard for it--and despite the crash of 2008, Obama rehired them.

[navarth]

53. Sadly, this sounds the most plausible.

What a stench arises from the whole deal.

I imagine some 'grownups' will tell me it's the way of the world, blah blah blah. I also imagine I would tell them to go fuck themselves.

[DeadEyeDyck]

79. Bingo

[merrily]

98. +1

[Gregorian]

8. Because the world is engaged in economic warfare?

And we've decided to take the dark road.

I'm involved in some negotiations right now, and instead of being the mean greedy person, I am going to approach it from the position of love and kindness. That way I can be honest with the person/company, and not get all excited and have to figure everything out to the smallest detail in order to make the most money.

And it's what I love about Bernie. (See, I got Bernie into this). When we behave kindly instead of being shrewd and calculated, as if it were war, then everybody ends up happier.

So the world is going to make all of this shit in manufacturing plants and companies, and people want to make sure they come out on top, or not be left behind.

Fuck it, let's all just be nice. And I don't think nice and sucker are synonymous.

[GeorgeGist]

25. +1

[RufusTFirefly]

41. +1,000 n/t

[99th_Monkey]

11. The best possible reason I can imagine is the "Compassionate Globalist"

i.e. that -- yes it will costs lots of Americans their jobs and yes it will give corporations even more power, but -- it's like a global leveling of wages and living conditions, costing Americans jobs and sovereignty, but somehow benefiting other "worthy" nations that will GAIN lots of jobs and an economic leg-up in the process?

I personally think that's a huge crock of bull-pucky, that most 8th graders could see through, so don't think it's very likely, but it has occurred to me, for about 2 minutes.

I think it's much more likely Obama's either being blackmailed or his life (and/or his family's) is being threatened by those who he knows could and would deliver on their promise.

[ananda]

60. It's a global leveling down of wages for the benefit of the rich.

I also think that there is some sort of threat involved.

But it could be that he can't see past the glamor of power
and elitism that exudes from his wealthy puppeteers/donors,
hence blinding him to the harsh realities for the majority of
Americans he is supposed to serve.

[99th_Monkey]

66. I think you've pretty much nailed it

The Dark Side has lots of "creative" way$ to threaten/coerce/force someone to do stuff, ways that are
both plausibly deniable, and yet very effective.

The allures of wealth & power are legendary.

That was a potential downside of the Kennedy clan, but they brilliantly turned it into a plus,
because they grew up in it, like a fish in water .. no biggie ... They immunized themselves
for the most part from that allure, and it gave them a clarity that saw through the disguises
of evil. Their bond with Martin Luther King forged in the fires of Southern civil rights
struggles speaks volumes.

To Obama on the other hand, this is a whole new ball game from community organizing in
Chicago neighborhoods.

[jeff47]

12. My guess is it's about sweatshops/slave-shops, and China.

I think he believes the labor protections in the TPP will improve working conditions in some pretty awful places.

I also think he believes a tighter economic coupling with the US will contain China's influence in these countries.

I also think he's wrong on both counts.

[Skittles]

40. he cannot possibly be that stupid

to think that something being pimped for by corporations and repukes would actually help working conditions

[truebluegreen]

48. +1 Well said.

[jeff47]

74. I think he just hasn't looked for the loopholes.

He seems very much to stop with the intention of a law, not the ways that law will be exploited.

So, Myanmar has to bring itself up to certain labor standards. Yay! Next we can keep ratcheting up the standards!

But they'll fudge that, and not really be much better. And the ratcheting will never happen.

[Skittles]

89. Obama does not strike me as a man who misses major details

[jeff47]

116. I'm not saying he is.

I'm saying infinite lawyers with infinite money will find some 5-party work-around that makes the regulations moot.

[merrily]

99. He and his advisors can't see the pitfalls, but DUers can?

Well, ain't we the clever ducks.

[jeff47]

115. No, we just assume there are pitfalls because there always have been.

He may believe he's got everything covered. However, I would not bet against infinite lawyers with infinite money finding a way around whatever safeguards are in the treaty.

[dreamnightwind]

87. He's basically a believer in multinational corporatism

It isn't thaat he's stupid, he just buys into their world view, so he sees them as a force for the greater good. It isn't my world view, at all, but I'm pretty sure it is his.

[merrily]

100. He's a New Democrat.

An interesting exercise is comparing the website of Congressional Progressive Caucus with that of the Congressional New Democrat Coalition. The comparison speaks volumes. Bernie is responsible for the former. Hillary had a lot to do with founding the New Democrat wing of the Party. Res ipsa loquitur.

[dreamnightwind]

109. Yes, and check out the origin and designer of DLC/PPI site, blew my mind

I thought the CPC website was the responsibility of Ellison and Grijalva? Is this the website you mean, or is there another one I don't know about?

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/about-cpc/

For a real contrast, the old DLC/PPI website (which were designed by our own Skinner, 5th site in this portfolio he posted, http://web.archive.org/web/19991014035441/www.onlineworkshop.com/portfolio/ ) are an informative read, you've probably already seen it. DLC Underground would have been a more appropriate title for this place, though I guess he tolerates the likes of us for the most part and allows it to be a general Democratic site rather than strictly New Dems.

It really is about competing world views, which is what I was saying in my response above, Obama isn't stupid or evil, he actually believes that multinational corporatism can be a force for the greater good, IMO. I can understand someone believing that, though I couldn't disagree more. We've been living that vision for too long, and desperately need to take our party back from the monied interests to whatever degree is possible.

[merrily]

111. When I said Bernie was responsible, I meant he started the House Progressive Caucus,

aka the Congressional Progressive Caucus, not that he is responsible for the current website. When I said compare the websites, I meant for content, not design. One speaks mostly to people, the other mostly to business. As you so aptly put it, a competing world view.

I cannot recall if I have seen the portfolio before. I don't draw conclusions from who someone's clients are. A gig's a gig and we all have to eat and pay rent. But, clearly, DU's admins are supporting Hillary for President. To each his own.

[dreamnightwind]

113. Oh, that makes more sense then

All of the stuff in my post, to me, is relevant to the question in the OP, it's an issue I've been kicking around in my head for awhile, trying to understand where corporate Dems (not the best term but that's the label I often use in my head) are coming from. I know a lot of people, many of them people I respect, who share their worldview, and I've been puzzling how we can be so far apart in our views.

I think the acceptance of multinational corporatism and its political manifestations has roots in an earlier time, when what was good for G.E. was seen as what was good for America, when the progressive position was radically pro-trade, the U.S. was the sole industrial power in-tact after the second world war, when the potential of capitalism to entire destroy our planet's ecosystem was not yet understood, and when there was a lot of uppward mobility in the U.S. economy, and by that I mean trade and international development projects was giving a lot of people in this country excellent jobs and opportunity, with world travel and global cultural experience a part of the benefits for a lot of people, such as Obama's mother.

In my more cynical times, I focus on the drivers of money and power's negative aspects as the roots of this worldview, seeing them all as sell-outs or worse. That is part of the equation, but I know too many of these people to leave it at that.

The other side of it is that their world-view was formed in a very different context than what we are facing now, distributed labor forces and the mobility of capital outpacing the mobility of impoververished workers, plus the ability of capital to multiply independently of actual beneficial production, has been enabled by the tech explosion, with software that gives capitalists tools they only once dreamed of, but which the global financial and trade models are incapable of managing in a way that truly benefits our world and its inhabitants. The speed and tools of modern tech have made the capitalist beast so unruly and so much more powerful than the nation states that attempt to regulate it, that it is no longer, if it ever was, a force for good, and the whole world-view that bought into all of that is only applicable to an earlier, more innocent, time.

So I think the roots of the New Dem thing is in part the corrupting influence of capital and a capturing of the Democratic Party by capitalist interests, and is in part just an extension of what used to be considered a progressive position, where trade, expansion, multinationalism, was part of a great exportation and seeding throughout the world of a fairly idyllic and naive view of U.S. exceptionalism, and that view is still dominant in a lot of people's minds, such as our President, people like the Clintons, and a lot of people I know who I respect but who are coming to entirely different conclusions than myself about what path our nation should be on.

Sorry to ramble so, relevant to the OP though and it's all something I'm in the process of working out internally, so writing about it is helpful to that process. I have to run (I have a gig to play and have to pack up and get there asap) so will post without proofing, I may look at it later though and do some editing.

[merrily]

114. Money and power. Each is seductive and addictive. In combination, look out.

[KoKo]

117. Interesting points...

I too struggle to figure out motives and actions. Think your points about "world view formed in different context" could definitely be part of what we are struggling with going forward tied in with the the tech explosion having a greater influence than we sometimes give credit to. Look at our Stock Market and Banking System now run by Algorithms on Computers. A more innocent time had "people" making trades with each other on NYStock Exchange...deals done by phone, person to person, etc. Accountants spending days, weeks, months doing calculations (and keeping watch) which now is done impersonally. Computers talking with each other with little human interaction is invasive in so much of our lives. Who could have imagined? And, it leaves so much open to mischief that couldn't have happened in a more "innocent time." NSA Surveillance..all Computers and Data Collection analyzed by Algorithms. On and on. I'm going off topic of the OP...but, I thought your post so interesting it got me thinking of how much is "out of control" these days and how that might affect our Political System.

The other side of it is that their world-view was formed in a very different context than what we are facing now, distributed labor forces and the mobility of capital outpacing the mobility of impoververished workers, plus the ability of capital to multiply independently of actual beneficial production, has been enabled by the tech explosion, with software that gives capitalists tools they only once dreamed of, but which the global financial and trade models are incapable of managing in a way that truly benefits our world and its inhabitants. The speed and tools of modern tech have made the capitalist beast so unruly and so much more powerful than the nation states that attempt to regulate it, that it is no longer, if it ever was, a force for good, and the whole world-view that bought into all of that is only applicable to an earlier, more innocent, time.

So I think the roots of the New Dem thing is in part the corrupting influence of capital and a capturing of the Democratic Party by capitalist interests, and is in part just an extension of what used to be considered a progressive position, where trade, expansion, multinationalism, was part of a great exportation and seeding throughout the world of a fairly idyllic and naive view of U.S. exceptionalism, and that view is still dominant in a lot of people's minds, such as our President, people like the Clintons, and a lot of people I know who I respect but who are coming to entirely different conclusions than myself about what path our nation should be on.

[ibewlu606]

13. Rec'd

If this question was asked about a Republican politician, most people would answer that the politician was a corporate whore doing what they were paid for.

[sheshe2]

37. So.

If this question was asked about a Republican politician, most people would answer that the politician was a corporate whore doing what they were paid for.

You are calling this twice elected Democratic President a corporate whore?

You have been here since 2011 and only posted 16 replies, yet in the last 90 days you have posted 86 times.

[green917]

58. He is, and has been, a corporate whore!

His economic team, from the beginning of his presidency has read like a who's who of ex Goldman Sachs and citibank executives. There is a reason he didn't go to the mat for a public option during negotiations for the aca, a reason he renegotiated tarp to make it more than 30% tax breaks for corporations, a reason he pushed for the bank bailouts without requiring anything for struggling American home owners in the deal or anything in return from the banks and I assure you, none of those reasons had anything to do with the welfare of middle class and working poor Americans!

[ibewlu606]

69. ?

I welcome your thoughts to the conversation, but this adds nothing that is relevant. Instead of questioning my motives for the number of posts in the last 90 days (fed up with corporate whores), why aren't you questioning Obama's motives for his actions that are hurting "everyday Americans".

[merrily]

101. Please see Reply #94.

[FlatBaroque]

14. In order to understand the President's desparation to pass TPA

you have to look at Ponzi -like economy that operates across the financial world. In order for a ponzi to continue to operate, new wealth must be extracted from the next set of marks. The American oligarchy needs to continue to obtain the ridiculous returns to which they have become accustomed. The trade agreements, which include gifts to many key corporate sectors, is the platform for the next wave of wealth extraction. Without it they will need to find another flow of cash, i.e., the fed continues QE (not likelY). Oh yeah that plus the ability to dclare corporate sovereignty superior to national sovereignty.

I believe Obama was hired for this very thing. It's big.

[uppityperson]

54. Good night. I must say I am impressed with your memory though.

[Duppers]

31. Quite a charge that I hate to agree with.

Yet it seems more evident. Damn.

But remember who pushed his presidency: Sen. Kennedy. Do you think he'd be involved in such a conspiracy? Or more likely the old adage, Power corrupts?

[FlatBaroque]

42. All he would have had to tell Kennedy was that he

would make passing health reform a priority.

They're going to hollow this country out even further. It could be a really sad day tomorrow.

[merrily]

103. Senator Kennedy did not endorse Obama until after Kennedy warned the Clinton

campaign about its so-called "racially tinged" tactics. He said something to the effect of "one more and I'm endorsing Obama." The Clinton campaign kept it up and Kennedy made good on his warning.

But, tell me, as between Hillary, Obama and McCain, who was Kennedy supposed to pick? At that point, he had the same choices that we did.

[Duppers]

112. Thank you!

I don't think I ever knew those details.

Sen. Kennedy had to follow his best judgement.

[Duppers]

34. Re QE. Came across this..

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-10/oops-fed-admits-qe-widens-inequality

[FlatBaroque]

45. Yeah, thanks.

I try to keep up with Tyler Durden. His takes are usually close to my own, just like the FED admitting something everyone knew.

[denverbill]

17. Before TPP, the hardest I've seen Obama campaign for anything is Michael Bennett.

Andrew Romanoff was the Democrat the vast majority of Dems in Colorado wanted and he's a solid progressive. Bennett is a TPP third way boy supported by billionaires. Obama spent more time supporting Bennett in the primary than he bothered with any other Dem in Colorado ever.

[truebluegreen]

33. Saw that.

[green917]

59. Sen. Mary Landrieu

He did the same thing in Louisiana

[salib]

22. Yep. He is not doing it for us.

[daleanime]

23. Don't know....

don't care....


don't like it.

[Thespian2]

26. One possible answer: Penny Pritzker

From Wikipedia:

Pritzker has contributed to numerous campaigns. Among the recipients have been the presidential campaigns and exploratory committees, including those of George W. Bush, Joe Lieberman, Bill Bradley, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain (2000), Al Gore, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.[28] On July 2, 2008, Ms. Pritzker and her husband hosted a $28,500 per plate fundraiser for Mr. Obama's campaign in Chicago with Warren Buffett and his wife, and Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett.[29]

Wonder who they had already chosen to be president?

[zeemike]

47. And they are getting what they paid for.

And he and his whole family will never have a financial worry ever...they have club membership in the big club.

Wby should he care about the little people.

[Thespian2]

68. Exactly!!!

[RufusTFirefly]

27. Because corporate campaign contributions have absolutely no influence on him

He just feels really, really strongly about this.

[SoapBox]

43. It's just bizarre...and either he's not hearing what the rest of us think or

he simply doesn't give a shit about working Americans.

[dflprincess]

46. I'm guessing the latter

He doesn't need our votes again and former presidents who played the game right tend to do very well.

[GoneFishin]

50. I don't dismiss the possibility that someone has shown him both a carrot and a stick.

But he has shown some strong leanings toward neoconservative economic policies, so ... ? Bad advisers?

I can only guess. But I know he is wrong on TPP.

[Jakes Progress]

55. It never really pays to try to guess why politicians are the way they are.

But this is the place to try.

I've come to think that he is awed by wealth and so ignores anyone who is not very rich. Just some schoolyard psychology, but maybe it has to do with not being rich when young. He is a product of our culture - a culture that worships the rich. They are our aristocracy, and we imbue them with intelligence they do not have. Most got wealthy through luck and connections and crass disregard for their fellow man, but the abiding American idea is that they know something the rest of us don't.

I have known a few truly wealthy people. Not one was as intelligent as many of my worker friends.

Just look at Obama's cabinet. Look at who he chooses to listen to. I mean to follow the advice of wall street bankers after they wrecked the economy was the very picture of a lost little kid trusting the big man to help him find his way.

Kinda sad. For him and for us.

[Phlem]

56. A man's gotta plan for retirement.

how else does one pay for that in this day and age?

Greasing palms.

[starroute]

57. I think it's mainly about pushing back against China (and Russia)

Obama's domestic policies have always been at least halfway progressive -- but on foreign policy he's squarely on the side of preserving US global hegemony. TTP is about keeping the Pacific Rim countries in the US sphere of influence. TTIP is about doing the same for Europe.

And there's a good case to be made for the argument that the administration is pushing for fracking and pipelines to make Europe dependent on our natural gas and not Russia's.

Assume that the consistent agenda since 1945 has been to maintain US power, irrespective of which party is nominally in control, and you'll explain a lot.

[drm604]

61. This is the explanation that makes the most sense to me.

I've been thinking pretty much the same thing.

[ALBliberal]

62. I have wondered if it has to do with the upcoming Supreme Court ruling

On the ACA. Maybe he gets the TPP passed and Supreme Court rules in favor of letting subsidies continue for all state\federal exchanges. It's the only thing I can come up with to explain his single minded almost fanatical pursuit of passing this trade agreement.

[BeanMusical]

63. Kick and R

So sick of all this.

[aspirant]

65. Why waste the energy,

he's not one of the 99%.

As far as the TPP, has anyone asked Obama if HE has read it in full or does he just get regular briefings in brief? Has he personally suggested and/or made any TPP changes and what were they? Let's just see how intimately involved he has been.

[marym625]

70. Great post, Manny

But I don't expect anything less

I don't really care what his motivation is. The fact he absolutely refuses to do anything to even discuss the issues brought up by so very many. That includes NOW, The Feminist Majority Foundation, The Sierra Club, etc etc. The fact that Paul Ryan is a go to person, well, that's enough to scare the bejesus out of anyone.


Whatever the motivation, the concerns need to be addressed in a way much more detailed than the implication that "the little lady is wrong." (Terry O'Neill quote on how President Obama sounded when speaking about Senator Warren)

[Martin Eden]

82. Economic competition against China

Barring the possibility that President Obama has been totally co-opted by the corporate oligarchy or he and his family are under threat by the Powers That Be, the best explanation I can come up with is this president truly believes the long term sustainability of the Western economy will be bolstered by this trade agreement.

My understanding of macroeconomics is insufficient to evaluate this hypothesis, but I think this is the most likely reason Obama is pushing the TPP.

I also think 6+ years being sequestered with elites of wealth and power has transformed his worldview and blinded him to the economic impact this will have on American labor and on the sovereignty of our democracy versus the growing power of international corporations.

I can find no justification in having a major trade deal crafted by private corporations while the American public and our representatives have no seat at the table and are kept largely in the dark.

[DebbieCDC]

90. This ^

[BeyondGeography]

104. Ego

It's the last big piece of legislation on his plate and the first that would have passed with bipartisan support. Ironic that it would be the Democrats who denied it to him in the end, but they were right to do so. Not so much for the particulars of the treaty but for the way the entire process was handled. The levels of secrecy were absurd, and he didn't do enough until it was too late to get Democratic votes because he knew he didn't need that many. The exchanges with Warren were another misstep.

He has been Ahab with this bipartisan thing all along. I'm glad this particular aspect of his presidency has apparently ended badly for him because it never made sense. It was good for his image and made him more electable, but it fell apart when it came to legislating. Republicans were never going to work with him on anything remotely progressive and the country has moved a few ticks to the left in the meantime. But, still, he stuck with it. He was always working to make good on that 2004 keynote theme but the stars were never going to align.

The promise to rich donor thing is lame, Manny. You did get the last part right though. It was never about personal financial gain, it was about his own isolated view of his legacy.

[merrily]

107. Wait until next week. I don't think it will end badly. I think we are seeing major kabuki.