The reason I say this is that it's being used to exclude certain countries and it sets up rules that explicitly favor particular countries.

Given its strategic nature its role is to protect both Western powers and regional countries that want investment from the West and to grow against the rise of China.

Since it protects 40% of the world GDP at the explicit and planned sacrifice of other nations and because it is used to instantiate international laws that protect those same countries I call it protectionist. And if you look at the leaked memos it's really not so big a stretch. It's also been called protectionist by people not aware of its strategic value (e.g. Assange).

That's because half of the TPP comments on this kind of article are astroturfing by the Chinese, and the rest are suckers who don't realize they're along for the ride.

Do you realize that most of our trade treaties enact domestic law right? According to the current interpretation of article II, section 2, clause 2 the treaties are essentially a manifestation of domestic law (as was NAFTA, for example.) Where you are incorrect is in the assumption that it cannot be repealed. In fact, it is easier to get out of them than it is to approve them: congress can pass laws that repeal any aspects of the treaty (and no, a treaty cannot prevent a future congress from such action -- no act of congress is in any way binding on future congresses and only a change to the constitution would allow for such a restriction), the supreme court could declare any or all of a treaty as unconstitutional, or a future president can just declare that the US is no longer party to a treaty. The latter bit is still somewhat untested, but in cases where it has been used by sitting presidents it has not been successfully appealed.