It's not for lack of trying: Obama gave a major speech on Metropolitan policy to the U.S. Conference of Mayors two months ago, which Diana Lind may want to read. But that speech probably got about as much traction on this blog as it did anywhere else.

I think that there is a widespread perception that urban and metropolitan issues = local issues. There's a strict division between the metropolitan, national, and political reporting in print and TV news, which contributes to this: the people covering the candidates spend a lot of time thinking about political horseraces and broad, nationwide stories, and they don't seem to be able to connect that in anything more than a vague way to the specific issues facing varied metropolitan areas.

I think Obama has the potential to change the conversation by consistently linking national issues to a discussion of regional and metropolitan differentiation. One example is the formula he's been using for talking about gun control: "What works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne." If he can do the same thing for the economy, for energy and transportation policy, for education, agricultural policy, usw., then we might make some headway. This seems consistent with the kind of community-organizing, ground-up message and political organization that Obama's advanced. It also may form the basis of a new vision for the Democratic party program, neither nationalist nor Federalist but something new.

There's always the danger that the Democratic party turns into a cheerleader for life in the metropole, whether urban or suburban, like bicyclists who can't help themselves from evangelizing to people who drive. (I know you ride a bike, Brady.) I love city life, but it isn't for everyone. And people in small towns, farms, and exurbs -- and their urban sympathizers and pedagogues -- don't like being made out to be retrograde. I've always favored taking the view of David Byrne in "The Big Country": Just because "I wouldn't live there if you paid me" doesn't mean that I haven't "learned how these things work together."

I also think it could be a very, very good thing for at least one state with a major city to have an early primary, which is why I've always been sympathetic to Carl Levin's efforts to get my home state of Michigan earlier in the calendar. But my worry is that Detroit -- god bless it, home sweet home -- has such an exaggerated relationship to the problems facing most cities in this country that it would introduce an entirely new kind of distortion.

Virtually every state with a major city also has a large and antagonistic non-city political representation (in the metropole and otherwise) which creates an established statewide politics that pits the city against everyone else. I also think this explains why Obama has been most successful in states that either have a large, relative diffuse black population or states with a very small black population: exurban whites in Ohio bring an antagonism to city politics and African-American politicians that rural and small-town whites west of the Mississippi don't. So it is an uphill fight all around.

The issue of a lack of concern, focus and dialogue in the presidential race about urban issues is complex. Earlier this year I was fortunate to hear Bruce Katz from Brookings give a presentation on The Blueprint for America Prosperity. Some of the key issues with "urban" issues in terms of trying to get attention at the federal level are:

• Most people do not care about urban issues.
• Urban means "black" or minorities to many people.
• Cities and most suburbs are not where the 20 percent undecided voters in a presidential election tend to be located in significant numbers.
• Cities and suburbs tend to not work together.
• Cities have a decreasing amount of Representatives in the House.

Some suggestions from Katz include:

• Refocus the discussion to metro areas, not cities.
• Have cities and suburbs work together in the metro areas.
• Point out the impact of metro areas to the global economy.
• Focus on the need for reinvestment in infrastructure.
• Have states take a lead on metro issues.

The problem w/the term 'regionalism' is that, when they hear it, suburbanites reflexively grab for their pocketbooks, assuming that it means that their money's going to go to Philadelphia.

Is this true? No, although there is a nugget of truth to the notion. But, by the same token, the suburbs would not exist were it not for Philadelphia. Would there be a world-class orchestra located in, say, Gladwyne? How about an MLB franchise in Newtown? The NFL in Narberth? Etc.

-Z