Nickels' natural agenda was fixing stony playgrounds? Mr. Brewster, you have GOT to be kidding! Nickels natural agenda was ordering neighborhoods to "assume the position." His adoption of green rhetoric was akin to Bush's adoption of evangelical Christianity: popular with voters but shamelessly sideways with the way they actually rolled. Voters were bamboozled long enough to give Nickels and Bush second terms, but after eight years finally saw them for what they are--empty, narcissistic suits.

Re Obama, some pundits are saying that if O gets health care reform right, he'll be the new FDR; if he gets it wrong, he'be the new Carter. If he gets Afghanistan right, he'll be the new Eisenhower; if he gets it wrong, he'll be the new LBJ. Sadly, the odds are mounting that he'll get it wrong on both counts.

It doesn't appear that Mallahan or McGinn are anything like Barack Obama in any way, shape or form. Carly Fiorina is contemplating a run for the US Senate in California.

As for Gregg Nickels? Good Mayor for not much longer. Time to move on to reporting about who these two finalists really are. All they've done so far is contrast themselves with a sitting Mayor who is no longer in the running.

The thesis of the piece is silly. One need only watch 5 minutes of "Ask the Mayor" on the Seattle channel to get to _know_ this man. Smart, warm, very respectful of the public's concerns and questions -- even when they're a bit crazy or misinformed. But most of of, incredibly knowledgeable about his city. There's rarely an issue he punts on. More often, he knows exactly what the caller is asking about, knows the terrain intimately, can explain the trade-off decision he faced, and can tell you exactly what city crews are doing right now to address the situation. You could see his passion for the job and the city in how interested and prepared he was. It's a shame Seattle got so bitter over so little and forgot this.

Your take on things is always interesting, Mr. Brewster, thanks.

The title of your piece is apt. Nickels never projected a simple and easily identifiable public persona that one could connect with, and from which one could extrapolate a vision of the city. Looking back, his platform still comes across as a random assortment of policies with no overarching themes or plot lines. That's not to say we need an idealogue in office. I would have been fine with a "take each issue as it comes" pragmatist, but even that persona didn't seem to fit.

Still, I can't help but wonder whether Nickels was a far better candidate than McGinn or Mallahan. McGinn strikes me as an axe grinding lefty, which is the last thing our city needs right now. And Mallahan seems like yet another indistinguishable and undistinguished corporate middle manager who arrived at his position by sucking up to the right people and never doing anything creative or risky.

Steinbrueck, where are you?

"One need only watch 5 minutes of "Ask the Mayor" on the Seattle channel to get to _know_ this man."

Interesting. Perhaps Nickels' mistake was in relying on obscure (and usually very dull) internet broadcasts to connect with his city.

The next mayor would be wise to leverage local TV stations and internet news sources for reaching his constituency. It's kind of remarkable that there's all this footage of Nickels, but none of it ever shows up in the media.

David, you completely lost me with the "public shyness" bit. The one thing that Nickels was not is shy, he was constantly putting himself in the middle of any public event he could. And he didn't just give the Great White Father Giving Out Trinkets speech, he stayed and talked with people on a very informal basis. That was probably the most compelling part of his tenure as Mayor. In fact, when he called me for my relatively unimportant endorsement and I said no, we had a very friendly talk about why. He was not at all disconnected from the electorate as you suggest.

The real problem with Nickels is that he was a vote farmer, and we were the crop. He would say all the right things, but after a while it was clear to the voters (at least 75% of us) that he was just there for the harvest. Behind the humble facade was a man who had a pathological need to control, so much so that he ultimately drove his formidable political machine off the road. It was this duality of his administration that you seem to have completely missed.

By the end of his second term Nickels had so consolidated power that he must have felt that his true constituents were those residing within his power pyramid, and not the rest of us. In recent years the arrogance of his lieutenants, cronies and city employees had become so pervasive that something had to be done. When Nickels conceded on Friday I had a deep feeling that I could quite figure out immediately: it was a sense of liberation from oppression.

"...he must have felt that his true constituents were those residing within his power pyramid, and not the rest of us....something had to be done."

There's truth in this--out of sheer frustration in trying to deal with (appointed) city staff, the city-regulated taxicab industry spent heavily on Drago in the last week --- to keep her on TV, to keep her votes from going back to Nickels, to get change---any kind of change---and hopefully some measure of responsiveness and respect at City Hall. Same goes for south end businesses that were impacted by--and ought to have benefited from--Sound Transit light rail, but whose concerns were dissed by the City.

David,
It's a good thing that Crosscut is so wonderful and the dialogue almost always worth reading, considering and joining (case in point) because sometimes you write the craziest things. That "firecracker" theory of coming to public judgment? Made my day.

A fine article.

The Ed Murray rumor should not be a shock to anybody after reading this, and thinking about those missing and conflicting parts trying to put humpty's office back together again.

Jumping into the fray ...

Different individuals have different styles. And certain styles are best suited to certain places and certain times.

But I have to say that Nickels' time as mayor was one of only two times during my 32 years in Seattle -- the other was the Norm Rice era -- when I felt the city had a positive vision and momentum.

"Developers called the tune"??? C'mon, David! You were around when Charlie Royer was mayor! Charlie had a once-in-100-years opportunity to shape downtown Seattle into a pedestrian-friendly cityscape, and he totally sold out. To accuse Nickels of anything comparable is ludicrous! (Remember, by the way, that Norm Rice was pilloried for "selling out to Nordstrom" and allowing the construction of Pacific Place -- actions that totally revitalized downtown to the benefit of all.)

"Didn't get the mingling thing"??? I remember spending a few hours with him at 5 a.m. when the tank front was being hoisted into place at the Aquarium. There were no TV cameras present -- just 100 people thrilled to mark this early-morning milestone for kids and their parents.

Maybe his biggest problem was that he wasn't sufficiently smooth to mobilize the elite ...

"and I fault him for not insisting that Sound Transit have stations that work well by focusing density and intercepting commuters." Huh, David?

Aside from Stadium and SODO stations, which light rail stations are not well-suited to "focus density"? Maybe Tukwila, but that decision was forced on Sound Transit by the city.

And how could Link light rail do better at "intercepting commuters" except by ignoring SE Seattle and instead following I-5 or the BNSF corridor? They could've built a great commuter route there, with lots of park-and-ride lots, but with damned few midday riders.

Chris Van Dyk: you continue to prove yourself as the most poorly informed, overpaid, sellout-to-big-business political consultant out there today.

Nickels' did best in the 37th and 11th leg districts. You know, the neighborhoods "most impacted" by light rail construction.

Seriously, it's amazing to me that the Taxi Owners Association, SEIU, and oil man Mark Baerwaldt would waste so much money on your useless pontifications. I love how Chris Van Dyk mimicks Ted Van Dyk with this simple approach to self-enrichment: "diss the Man while you work for the Man."

Similarly mystifying: David Brewster's bizarro light rail station concepts, and his unexplained complaints about "out of control" transit spending.

How is it that the Seattle "liberal" dinosaur never has a single negative thing to say about "out-of-control" highway spending? Whereas transit agencies like Sound Transit are limited by all sorts of financial restrictions, the 9 and 5 cent gas tax increases were all about worry-free spending. Behold, the "liberal" transit critic's perpetual double standard.

Just Google "zombie highways," and you can get an idea of all the exposé stories David Brewster passed up during decades of freeway-driven suburbanization.

And when Chris Van Dyk mentions "complaints dissed by the city," he is referring to his lobbying firm - Bainbridge Island Associates - representing a gas station and drive-thru fast food businesses which whined endlessly about road safety improvements that supposedly hurt their bottom line.

You can tell Chris Van Dyk really cares about "the more important things" in life. I mean, is there anything more fragile and endangered than Chevron and McDonalds?

Nick Licata should be ashamed he uses this guy as his consultant. It's time for the Olde Seattle dinosaurs to go the way....of the dinosaurs.

"When Nickels conceded on Friday I had a deep feeling that I could quite figure out immediately: it was a sense of liberation from oppression."

Oh, good Lord in heaven. It's just so appropriate the Dinosaur Star goes to unter, who named himself after his victim's complex.

Oppressed? By what? The SLUT? Bridging The Gap? The fact you tried to drive your rear wheel drive sports car down a steep hill in wet snow?

The city is full of spoiled brats. And Crosscut seems to have adopted them as their primary market. It's pathetic when you really think about it...

The joke's on you, Mr. Victimized Complainer Guy: things are gonna get a lot more "oppressive" under Joe "corporations rule" Mallahan, or Mike "I have no idea what I'm doing" McGinn.

Oops, right?

grouch that i am i was not especially grouchy with mayor nickels and am surprised to note that the nice people of seattle are even grouchier than i. these are the same people that see snow all year round and are surprised when there's a once in a decade itsy bitsy snow storm and don't even clear the paths to the sidewalk! i talked to the mayor once, briefly, at his re-election 4 years ago, and since i used to swim with ed koch in the woolworth tower basement [who dog paddled before dashing over to ny city hall around 7 a.m.] and i knew a bit about the shape ny city was in at that time, i made just one suggestion to mayor nickels: try to make sure that all those new buildings are as hideous as the previous ones. american cities seem to thrive from the building industry tearing down and putting up new buildings, the so called engine of development. obviously, the way native americans lived prior to being conquered by the white man is far preferable, more natural, and also produced better art.

I think you are spot on with the critique of Seattle's mayors being unapproachable for the average citizen. This perhaps is not a fault of the individual but of the nature of the beast. Seattle is too big to be an effective MUNICIPAL government.

Municipal government is retail government, and it's elected leaders must be in direct touch with their constituents - community councils and neighborhood planning can help but are NOT a substitute for informed decision making.

FWIW Mr. Brewster, you aren't all that accessible yourself.

My impression of Hizzoner was first built upon an encounter at a conference in San Francisco December 2001. I happened to sit two empty seats on the same aisle away from him. At this time, he was mayor incognito awaiting is first days in office. At the plenary end, he asked the speaker how San Francisco "got residents to go along" with tearing down that city's earthquake damaged double-deck Embarcadero viaduct, nevermind the critical differences between it and the AWV.

By summer of that year, I'd drawn a cross-sectional view of a proposal for how Alaskan Way could be rearranged sans viaduct. I reached over with a copy of the drawing and offered it to him, "Here's an idea for Seattle you could have a look at it." He looked at me like I was some kind of leper and reluctantly took the copy gingerly between the tips of his thumb and first finger like it was dripping with germs and dropped it indifferently on the chair between us, without so much as the least sign of interest or appreciation. He was the personification of Seattle snootery that I've experienced too many times firsthand.

In May of 2000, I went before Sound Transit board 2 or 3 times to lend analytical argument to support building Link LRT south instead of the subway north which had just busted its budget. I'm pretty sure Nickels was there and heard my testimony. What it was he didn't like about it and me is an unanswered question that I don't care is ever answered.

By the way, that cross-sectional view of Alaskan Way is roughly equivalent to WsDOT's 4-lane Cut-n-cover, their redesign to reduce the construction disruption of their 6-lane version that voters wisely rejected for that reason in March 2007. In other words, by Summer of 2001, WsDOT could have produced their grudging 2008 4-lane Cut-n-cover. I still advocate for it as a far better tunnel than the Deep-bore. Too bad it didn't get the blessing of his highness Nickels back then. He was busy judging himself too important to receive a submission from some low-class commoner.

Buh-bye Nick-ulls.

Memo to Nickels and entire mayoral staff and all other patronage: Please leave town; do not steal anything from your workplace; and go form your own 'nicklesville' tent city somewhere in a different time zone.

Great perspective by Brewster.
Especially on the personality/mingling issue.

Faults and all- Nickels has a passion for the city, worked hard and was not corrupted.
I think we'll miss him more that we care to admit.

Too many lofty plans for South Lake Union and the Big Bore and green cities, not enough service to constituents, I think.

By the way, Mr. Brewster, I notice you've picked up that verbal tic so common at Crosscut of talking about how Seattle politics were so much better twenty years ago. You know what? Most modern Seattleites either weren't here in the 80's or were little kids. This is a young, growing town. All this nostalgia for a bygone era makes Crosscut feel like a VFW hall sometimes.