FABB recently had a post comparing the 2008 candidates' energy policy with an eye on bicycling. As did BikePortland. They both came to the same conclusion:
From what we can tell, the Barack Obama campaign is the only one that mentions bicycling in their energy plan.
From L.A.'s Street Heat
“As president…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.”
And Obama claims to support the Bike Commuter Benefits Act, but he's not a cosponsor (Update: As pointed out in the comments, it turns out he is - of the Senate version. You can't trust anything you read on the internets. Stupid tubes.) Kucinich is of the House version. (Update: So is Ron Paul)
Huckabee leads the Republican's by mentioning mentions he rides his bike to the grocery store.
Clinton and Edwards both state the goal of reducing vehicle miles, and Edwards rode in RAGBRAI.
D.C., Maryland and Virginia all hold their presidential primaries on Feb 12th, by which time it could all be over.
If you're talking about HR 1498, you have an erroneous statement here. Yes, it's true that Obama is not a cosponsor of HR 1498; he can't be - he's a member of the Senate, not the House. He is, however, a cosponsor of the companion bill in the Senate (S. 858). Sen. Clinton is not. In fact, if you want to get all technical, Obama sponsored the measure on 04/10/07, months before Kucinich did on 07/17/07.
Posted by: Chris | January 30, 2008 at 10:45 AM
I was undecided before, but I'll have to vote for Obama since he's the bigger bike supporter! Though Bush rides a bike... that tells me maybe I should consider other issues...
Posted by: Jack | January 30, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Yeah, cycling is a pretty small issue in light of everything else (health care, war, economy, global warming, terrorism, immigration, etc...). Probably better to think about energy, transportation and urban policy in a larger scale. I can't help you there.
Posted by: washcycle | January 30, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Mea culpa -- I was indeed mistaken in writing that Obama was not a supporter of the energy bill. I've emended the post. Thanks for catching that, you all.
As for bicycling being important -- I don't know where to begin on this. It's hardly a cure-all, but it's tied in with every issue on the table, from energy security to the fate of our public bridge and highway infrastructure to public health to plain old happiness. Supporting bicycling hurts nobody, helps everybody, and empowers people just that much more on all these related issues. I don't see any case for irrelevance, unless your interest in cycling is strictly limited to mechanical wonkery and snazzy gear. Not that there's anything wrong with that stuff, but you see what I mean.
Posted by: Elly | February 01, 2008 at 02:16 PM
If endorsements from Oberstar and Blumenauer matter, then Obama appears to be the bikers' choice:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/oberstar-blumenauer-endorse-obama-2008-02-01.html
Posted by: anakcu | February 01, 2008 at 02:51 PM
I wouldn't say irrelevant (or else I wouldn't write a blog about it). Just that I wouldn't be a one-issue voter about it. I care about DC voting rights too, but that concern could be superseded by others.
It does help to paint a whole-person picture of a candidate though.
Posted by: washcycle | February 01, 2008 at 05:06 PM