Obama Gets A Boost From the Crucial Bicycle Swing Vote
by Andrew Posner, Rhode Island, USA on 01.14.08
Yes, we all know that politicians pander to special interest groups in the hopes of picking up key votes. Unfortunately, bicyclists aren't usually one of the interest groups targeted by politicians (although there have been some funny photo-ops of, for instance, John Edwards riding his bike with Lance Armstrong). This bit of news isn't going to change how politicians view cyclists, but it may change how cyclists view a certain politician. According to C.I.C.L.E. (it stands for Cyclists Inciting Change Thru Live Exchange), the Portland bicycle community has unearthed a quote from Barack Obama's energy platform in which he expresses his support for cycling and mass transit. And It turns out that Obama is "the only one of the Democratic presidential candidates who explicitly encourages bicycle transportation in his platform." On the Republican side, the only mention of bicycles comes from Mike Huckabee who, apparently, "rides his bike to the grocery store." (Huckabee is a big proponent of health and wellness, having himself lost over 100 pounds). Read the quote from Obama's platform after the fold:
As president, Barack Obama will re-evaluate the transportation funding process to ensure that smart growth considerations are taken into account. Obama will build upon his efforts in the Senate to ensure that more Metropolitan Planning Organizations create policies to incentivize greater bicycle and pedestrian usage of roads and sidewalks, and he will also re-commit federal resources to public mass transportation projects across the country. Building more livable and sustainable communities will not only reduce the amount of time individuals spent commuting, but will also have significant benefits to air quality, public health and reducing greenhouse gas emissions."
So, does this make you more inclined to vote Obama?
Via: ::C.I.C.L.E.
See Also: ::Obama Refines His Position on Coal, ::Obama's Hawaii Alma Mater a Green Leader, ::US Senator Obama Starts Crusade Against Lead Paint, ::Two Dem Front Runners Oppose Nuclear Waste Dump Site, ::Survey: Who Do you agree with about climate change?, and ::Arrgh, Stephane! Don't Do an Obama!
1) OMG! He's on a fixie with no brakes! The horror!
2) I started a thread over in the forums about how I didn't think anything bad about Obama until he won Iowa-- and that all of a sudden made me realize if he were a white guy running on a center-right platform of pro-nuclear energy and "clean" coal donations, I'd hate him as much as I hate Clinton. See http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?t=2276
But more importantly, all the ideas being put forth by all the democractic contenders are all coming from Edwards. Consider, for support for this contention, this Krguman editorial from today: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/opinion/14krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Edwards has been out in front on every issue. He was the first democrat to say anything about CAFE standards. Clinton and Obama then come along and alter his substantive proposals on things like CAFE or health care, or whatever it may be, ever so slightly and no one seems to notice who did all the work. The media story is the race is about Clinton and Obama, because no one's taking the time to look for the real leadership, and most people don't follow politics closely enough to know what's going on. But people who actually pay attention--even radical left wingers like Normon Solomon are backing Edwards despite the media's treatment that it's a foregone conclusion that we'll wind up with either Clinton or Obama as the democratic nominee. If they'd stop saying it for long enough, though, it'd no longer be true.
It'd be funny, if there were so much as stake.
1) OMG! He's on a fixie with no brakes! The horror!
2) I started a thread over in the forums about how I didn't think anything bad about Obama until he won Iowa-- and that all of a sudden made me realize if he were a white guy running on a center-right platform of pro-nuclear energy and "clean" coal donations, I'd hate him as much as I hate Clinton. See http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?t=2276
But more importantly, all the ideas being put forth by all the democractic contenders are all coming from Edwards. Consider, for support for this contention, this Krguman editorial from today: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/opinion/14krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Edwards has been out in front on every issue. He was the first democrat to say anything about CAFE standards. Clinton and Obama then come along and alter his substantive proposals on things like CAFE or health care, or whatever it may be, ever so slightly and no one seems to notice who did all the work. The media story is the race is about Clinton and Obama, because no one's taking the time to look for the real leadership, and most people don't follow politics closely enough to know what's going on. But people who actually pay attention--even radical left wingers like Normon Solomon are backing Edwards despite the media's treatment that it's a foregone conclusion that we'll wind up with either Clinton or Obama as the democratic nominee. If they'd stop saying it for long enough, though, it'd no longer be true.
It'd be funny, if there weren't so much at stake.
Obama in center-right?
If your talking about him in general, then I say you have lost it...
If your saying his energy policy, you do have a point about "clean" coal and CTG (although he has said he only supports it if it results in a 20% net reduction in carbon). We will have to agree to disagree on nuclear.
Otherwise, Obama is in many ways as strong a candidate as Edwards on energy and climate change.
The league of conservation voters gives Obama a MUCH higher score of 96%, to Edwards 59%.
http://www.lcv.org/voterguide/
Stevejust ::
I totally agree. Edwards is the one that is leading all of this radical policy (just what we need). I just wish he had a snowball's chance in hell of winning... his whole strategy was based on taking at least a few of the early states, and he's lost 2 of them so far.
But, Obama seems like a pretty together guy, and he has (as you said) mostly adopted Edwards' stance on this. So there's still hope. Now let's just keep Clinton out of the running and we might actually win this thing.
Took the words right out of my mouth!
Pretty cool looking chrome frame fixed gear with a Red Chris King headset and a carbon fork?
I think all the Dems will be open to ideas for helping out mass and bike transport. The real kick in the assets will come from local government. I just think of what Mayor Mike Bloomberg and his transportation people are doing in NY (with some good activists like the folks at TransAlt.org and times-up.org). I think the top of government might be too high up the ivory tower to make stuff happen at the local level.
I am still ... 'optimistic'.
vsk
Honestly, I really believe Obama is one of the few candidates in a long time who understands issues that effect cities. Having started in community organization in the south side of Chicago, he has seen first hand what happens when you have trains that clearly favors one part of the city and bypasses "the projects" as the CTA does. These issues I believe go beyond just environmentalism for Obama. He has also seen what happens as we invest in roads for the suburbs while allowing our public transportation to deteriorate.
I have to disagree with the Edwards supporters here, I firmly believe having watched Obama as our state senator that he has been working to promote a progressive agenda for a long time now. He also understands more then anyone that change has to come from the ground-up which is the only way true sustainability will ever happen.
Well, Edwards isn't winning, but Clinton is terrifying, so I'm going for Obama and hoping he picks Edwards as a running mate (which is likely).
For the record, saying Obama is pro nuclear energy is wrong. He's put through initiative in Congress promoting alternative forms of energy and not only the halt but the reduction of nuclear weapons. He talks at length about these things. Perhaps he recognizes that we can't immediately halt the use of nuclear energy and disable all nuclear weapons but he certainly has proven it's one of his main concerns.