Over at OpenLeft, Chris Bowers mentions that we, and other regional blogs from the homestates of the major Democratic candidates for president, haven’t endorsed anyone for president (specifically not our own Senator Hillary Clinton). He suggests this is a good thing, and I agree, but I think it is important to think about what the various presidential candidates would do for the Rochester area.

As far I’m concerned, the biggest problem, as well as by far the greatest asset, for this area is the city of Rochester itself. While blessed with beautiful old buildings, walkable neighborhoods, and cultural riches that most cities of its size would envy, Rochester is also plagued by poverty and the problems that come with poverty. These problems are not unique: many other urban areas face the same problems. But under the Bush administration, David Broder of the Washington Post (whom I normally dislike) writes:

The current HUD secretary, Alphonso Jackson, is the least conspicuous member of a less-than-notable Cabinet — a man who pleases the president by giving absolutely no visibility to urban issues.

Broder goes on to write:

Obama, whose first job after Harvard Law School was as a community organizer in low-income South Side Chicago, spoke from experience about the “overwhelming” impact of concentrated urban poverty. “It’s so difficult to escape,” he said in his speech last week. “It’s isolating and it’s everywhere.”

(snip)

As a senator, Hillary Clinton has helped the revival of Harlem and the recovery efforts of Lower Manhattan after Sept. 11, 2001, but she also understands the struggles of the old industrial cities of Upstate New York, where longtime manufacturers have succumbed to foreign competition or joined the exodus to overseas locations.

John Edwards has made perhaps the most serious effort of anyone to understand the pathology and psychology of poverty, drawing on both academic studies and the firsthand experiences of his own walking tours.

He concludes that the point is that all three are ready to give urban areas the attention they have been denied for the past six (or more) years.

Our purpose here is not to contrast the various Democratic candidates but instead to make this point: this area needs progressive leadership at the national level. As the campaign progresses, we will try to revisit the issue of how various candidates will deal with urban problems.

Update: As I read my comments about the city of Rochester (where I live) over, they seem incredibly cliched and predictable. And, yet, I feel that I rarely see the role of the city within this area discussed from this perspective, as a place that should anchor the entire region but which also faces many serious problems. Too often, political debate in Monroe County devolves into suburbs versus city (this is Minarik’s plan) when the reality is that the city plays an extremely important role in the well-being of the suburbs (and probably vice versa to some extent). Again, all of this is obvious, but it is not often said (at least publicly).