Critics say Clinton's strategic silence renews suspicions about her authenticity. TRADE Progressives lash out at Clinton on trade Despite racking up a win in the House on Friday, progressives condemn Hillary’s lack of leadership on the issue.

Liberals have a message for Hillary Clinton in the wake of Friday’s House vote on trade: Refusing to take a stand is worse than standing against us.

Anti-trade Democrats, including influential activists in early primary states, say that Clinton’s vague comments on the campaign trail about fast-track authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership — a measure put in grave danger on Friday by a revolt among House Democrats — signal her silent support for the ambitious free trade expansion. What’s worse, they say, is that her strategic silence renews suspicions about her authenticity.


“If you really want to be a leader, you really ought to say where you are on an issue,” said Ken Sagar, president of the Iowa AFL -CIO.

“It was a missed opportunity,” said New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, the progressive leader who has declined to endorse Clinton several times despite having run her 2000 Senate campaign.

Even as organized labor and progressives prevailed on Friday with House Democrats holding firm against pressure from the White House to approve a measure needed to seal the larger trade deal, condemnation of Clinton was still swift and sharp.

“No one’s surprised. No one. No one. No one,” said New Hampshire liberal activist and radio host Arnie Arnesen. “The fact that she took no position is exactly what we expected. … If you’re running only to be safe, then how can you lead? How can you lead? I don’t see leadership. I see fear.”

No wonder, said Arnesen, that “progressives don’t trust her.”

Clinton has been in a tight spot on the trade deal, a centerpiece of the administration’s pivot to Asia, which began during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. She risks being portrayed as a flip-flopper and alienating business interests if she comes out strongly against the negotiations for the 12-nation trade pact, while voicing support would alienate the progressive base she’s been eagerly courting.

“In some ways, for her, this was a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t,” said Steve Rosenthal, a Democratic strategist with ties to organized labor, adding that Clinton has “a lot to prove” to unions on fighting for the middle class.

Labor leaders in Iowa said they reached out to the Clinton campaign as late as Tuesday to urge the candidate to oppose the trade promotion authority for the TPP, which unions maintain would harm American workers. Though Clinton has said in the past that “the TPP needs to include strong protections for workers, the environment, intellectual property, and innovation,” she has not weighed in on fast-track authority. The Clinton campaign didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

“I think by her sitting it out, it says she’s supported the president on this. … I’m taking her lack of an answer as an answer,” said Steve Abbott, president of the Communications Workers of America Iowa State Council, who spoke to Clinton campaign officials last week.

Several progressives said Clinton’s silence was more alarming than vocal support of TPA and TPP would have been. “It’s almost worse to not take a stand either way,” said Christopher Schwartz, head of the Iowa chapter of Americans for Democratic Action. “Even though we’re completely opposed to trade promotion authority and TPP, I’d much prefer to know where a candidate stands.”

It’s another indication that Democratic primary voters have concerns about whether Clinton is being straight with voters. A quarter of Democrats in a recent CNN poll said they wouldn’t describe Clinton as honest or trustworthy.

The contrast is particularly glaring in her contest against Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who vocally opposed the North American Free Trade agreement signed by Clinton’s husband and has been very specific on policy on the stump.

Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, another rival for the Democratic nomination who also opposes fast-track authority, have both taken shots at Hillary for her mushy stance.

“If she’s against this, we need her to speak out right now,” Sanders told reporters in Washington on Thursday. In a subsequent interview, Sanders agreed with the suggestion that her silence amounts to a “cop-out.”

Clinton remains the overwhelming favorite to win her party’s nomination, and miffed progressives say she still has time to weigh in.

Larry Cohen, who served as president of the Communications Workers of America until last week and continues to spearhead anti-TPP efforts, called Clinton’s approach to the deal a “major disappointment,” but said, “It’s not too late. We expect and hope that Secretary Clinton will speak out.”

Ilya Sheyman, executive director of MoveOn.org Political Action, called it “disappointing” that Clinton hadn’t yet joined other Democratic presidential hopefuls on the issue but said “she still has time to do so,” with House Republicans looking at more votes this week.

Economist Robert Reich, who served as Bill Clinton’s labor secretary, said he too was disappointed with Clinton’s silence, but that ample opportunity remains to embrace a progressive economic agenda.

“She is playing it very cautiously,” said Reich. “The issues she’s taken a position on — immigration, voting rights and criminal justice — are all commendable but they’re not especially risky. They appeal to important constituents whose turnout on Election Day is critical. On the other hand, she hasn’t yet taken on the structure of the economy. … I’m hoping she does.”