I would suggest that you take the time to read this article from The Hill:
and then Froman's speech itself:
If you only read the news reports about this speech and not the speech itself you will be sorry.
Obama continues to wage Wall Street's war on the working class, not only in our our country, but across the globe, by advancing the TPP.
Those who fear discussing "imperialism" and the socialist alternative to capitalism in its most decadent and barbaric stage of imperialism because doing so is some kind of "infantile leftism" are doing working people a great disservice.
Now, more than ever, we need to be providing the American people with and anti-imperialist education in building an anti-imperialist movement to fight against the TPP.
Those who "liberals," "progressives" and "leftists" who promote this idea are dividing our movements which would be capable of winning peace, real reforms, real change and most importantly challenging Wall Street for political and economic power:
"The emergence of an extreme far-right accelerated sharply in reaction to the overturning of the eight-year rule of the right wing with the 2008 election of Barack Obama, an African American and a liberal with a grassroots base and generally progressive agenda."
Obama has a right-wing agenda because he is carrying out Wall Street's agenda of wars abroad paid for through austerity measures here at home.
To suggest that Obama, the drone President carrying out Wall Street's thoroughly reactionary right-wing neo-liberal agenda, is a "liberal" with a "progressive agenda" is adding to the confusion that already exists in this country.
Such "analysis" is inconsistent with anti-imperialist education and building an anti-imperialist movement.
No matter what "spin" Ambassador Froman attaches to the TPP it is part and parcel of Obama's reactionary Wall Street imperialist agenda and this can never be "liberal," "progressive" or "left" by any stretch of anyone's imagination nor using linguistics to creatively twists and bastardize language to make Obama appear as something that he is not.
The logical conclusion one would have to draw from calling Obama a "liberal" with a "progressive agenda" is that imperialism is liberal and progressive.
Is there anyone prepared to make this assumption?
Would anyone believe this?
What "values" drive U.S. trade policy?
Isn't U.S. trade policy driven by Wall Street's insatiable greed?
Isn't this what the TPP is all about? Wall Street greed?