Mallahan or McGinn? That is the question.
I have no answer yet about how to vote in the Seattle mayor's race. Like a lot of people, I'm still working it out.
By Knute Berger
October 28, 2009.
I'm ambivalent about Seattle's two mayoral candidates, as are many people I respect. I don't think there's an absolute right or wrong this election, and despite diligently watching candidate debates, meeting the candidates and their backers, and querying respected colleagues on how they're voting, I know I'll be casting my vote with misgivings.
In many respects, Joe Mallahan has qualities I'd like to see in a mayor. He has an every-guy, blue-collar, local-boy aspect that I like. And I like pragmatism, which he claims to embody. Mayors Greg Nickels, Paul Schell, Norm Rice, and Charles Royer were all at their best at their most pragmatic: filling potholes, fixing roads, helping schools, expanding libraries and community centers. OK, snowplowing not so much. But their visionary qualities were often weak points: urban villages, laser sculptures on Elliott Bay, "Seattle is a Kids Place," world-class-city-building, Kyotoing. These painted vivid pictures, but they were the political equivalent of refrigerator art. Joe Mallahan, like his ordinary Joe name, seems like he'd skip the finger-painting for something more concrete, like building a tunnel.
Mallahan also has a passion for charitable works and involvement, a laudable social conscience. He was inspired to volunteer for Barack Obama, awakened by the last election in a way that millions of Americans were. I don't fault him, as some of McGinn's supporters do, for self-funding some of his primary campaign. Indeed, I find it admirable that he put his money where his values are. Some are troubled by his voting record, and it is bad, but voting is voluntary — not a duty but a right to be exercised, or not. That he has awakened from a political slumber and become motivated for local public service should be applauded as a virtue, not a vice. If not for his own money, he never would have been taken seriously as a threat to Mayor Nickels. As it was, it got him second place in the primary. It was a smart, gutsy move.
The downside of Mallahan isn't his vision, or lack of it. It's that, despite his focus on pragmatism, he has so little actual experience with politics and government. Even more concerning is his learning curve. Watching him in his debates with Mike McGinn, it has been painful to see a man so unable to make his own best case. Listening to him defend the tunnel, talk about incentive zoning, or discuss the "Africans" who support him was troubling. It's as if he has a kind of Bush-style verbal dyslexia. Mallahan has sometimes sent surrogates out in his place to meet with some influential Seattleites. Charming as she is, sending Tina Podlodowski on Joe's behalf reinforces the sense that she might be better mayoral material than the candidate.
Mallahan's last televised debate on KOMO was his best yet, and he finally connected with a pitch or two, but more often he's been like a Mariners batter who couldn't even see his favorite pitch coming. Even Mallahan's aides admit his learning curve will be steep if elected, as it has been for some other mayors, like Royer, our last three-termer. But Royer was politically informed and had communications skills from his days at KING-TV, skills that are essential for leaders. That Mallahan has neither is cause for pause.
Another concern is where he does have experience. I've never been enamored of business candidates because generally it is poor preparation for running a government, which must function on non-business principles and often stand up to the demands of business itself. A city is more than an engine for driving profits, there's more to it than efficiency, and citizens aren't customers, consumers, or shareholders. The last thing Seattle needs is a CEO.
Another worry is how Mallahan is backed by the largely reassembled Nickels money machine. He's got the business community behind him. No one can credibly deny that Mallahan's main political advice is coming from people like Tayloe Washburn and the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce. He's also got a lot of labor backing because of his support of the tunnel, which is a massive public works project. Labor, business; all he lacks are the greens, though he has some. With the notable exception of support from Vulcan, Mallahan is clearly the choice of Seattle power brokers. To me, this growth-at-all-cost crowd is responsible for some of the worst excess and stupidity of the city's boom years, and the thought of them whispering in the rookie Mallahan's ear like the ravens of Odin does not bode well.
As to Mike McGinn, he is a very appealing, un-mayoral candidate, not conventionally telegenic, a bearded guy who wears a blazer like it's a foreign object. Here's passionate, rumpled Seattle, the guy from Greenwood who fought for sidewalks, the Sierra Club activist who challenged the road builders and helped get more light rail passed. He answers his own phone, eschews handlers, comes to meetings on his electric bike.
McGinn has been described as a "bomb-thrower," a guy who will mess with the status quo to get something done. In a green city, he's greener-than-thou. He doesn't want more roads, but wants streetcars, light rail and buses in abundance. He even wants them more aggressively than the agencies that provide the service. One big concern: He's running a true-believer campaign stocked with young greens who will do somersaults to prove he walks on water or is the second-coming of Obama. Yes, he's a big-vision guy who, some say, is a kind of Trojan candidate: That rumpled Seattle exterior masks ambition, arrogance, an embrace of growth that matches his "Great City" notion that Seattle has a Big City destiny. Despite his neighborhood activism, he's greeted with lots of skepticism by many neighborhood activists who think he's too pro-density, pro-high-rise.
Many of his backers embraced his tunnel opposition and his support of a surface option the way they previously backed the Monorail's Green Line: as a moral, planet-saving crusade, an example of Manichaean good and evil. It's hard to see that in the McGinn-Mallahan choice, but there's definitely an eco-echo chamber on that wing of city politics.
McGinn rudely disabused some with his tunnel flip-flop, a classic case of trying to have something both ways. McGinn is still opposed to the tunnel, he says, but will not stop it because the Seattle City Council wants to go ahead (9-0 vote). However, he will ask tough questions, he reassures, and he continues to outline what a bad idea the tunnel is. His problem now is that for those who knew him as a tunnel opponent, he seems like a traitor to his cause, an opportunist; worse, a lawyer. For those who support the tunnel, they must ask, who will build a better one? A man who hates it and will likely undermine it while claiming to be "mayoral" in supporting the will of the people, or a man who really believes in the thing? Scarily, his true-believer supporters seem undeterred by his changed position, acting as if it is simply further proof of his infallibility. What is in that McGinn Kool-Aid?
But here's the thing about McGinn: While his tunnel switch showed a lack of political skill and conviction, while McGinn engineered a tunnel weasel that, we hope, is not indicative of the engineering skills of the actual tunnel builders (if it happens), McGinn's tunnel skepticism is exactly right on. It is likely to be a boondoggle, expensive, a mess. Hard questions do have to be asked, and the option reeks of the classic kind of win-win Seattle solution that is overpriced and not well thought out. He's also right about the dangerous shoals of moving ahead with a hostile Olympia and tight budgets all around.
It's worrisome that Mallahan maintains an oblivious stance on the tunnel, a kind of Pollyannish belief that he'll bring it in on time and on budget, with the idea that Seattle won't have to pay for the extras. How is it possibly good politics to announce publicly that Olympia's legislation is simply symbolic, i.e., to be ignored? How is it good politics to imply that Seattle can spend whatever it wants on the tunnel and that taxpayers can afford to? Mallahan the pragmatist is an unrealistic tunnel idealist; McGinn the tunnel cynic is the truth-teller who lied about swearing to stop the tunnel. He seemed to surrender his principles when the City Council squeaked. Oh, my.
While McGinn is direct about tunnel costs and overruns, he is less skeptical about his own big plans. The surface option and I-5 project would likely be a budget buster too, especially when all of its flaws, complications and delays are dealt with. Not necessarily on the tunnel scale, but still. It would take a lot of mitigation money to get something acceptable in the final details: any surface solution would be battled and compromised block by block. That's the kind of insurgency Seattle excels at. But McGinn also wants to expand light rail to Ballard and other neighborhoods, expand the streetcar system, and put light rail on SR 520. Start totaling the tab and McGinn's case for fiscal prudence is vaporized by his own vision. McGinn puts it off by talking about drawing up plans and putting them to public votes. But McGinn is not Mr. Austerity.
McGinn's chief positive, and it's a big plus, is his intelligence and environmental campaign experience (transportation, parks). People who have worked with McGinn have felt the sharp elbows of his ambition, but he knows something about city shaping and urban policy, and when you talk to McGinn on substance, there's a real there there. For those Seattleites who were tired of Nickels' opacity or are worried about Mallahan's sentence structures and non sequiturs, McGinn is refreshing: informed in the details, ready to argue, but also a man who asks intelligent questions. In this respect he reminds me of Mark Sidran, who ran and lost narrowly to Nickels in 2001. Sidran clearly had the sharper intellect, and it somewhat made up for his edges. You found that even when you disagreed on policy, you could respect him.
One small example of policy engagement that means something to me: Historic Seattle asked all the candidates to respond to a questionnaire about their positions on preservation, which is a key part of any city planning and environmental strategy. Mallahan hasn't responded; McGinn provided specifics. McGinn has insisted that his campaign is an exemplar of how he would run the city: open, personal, direct. Mallahan's operation, quite frankly, has been something of a mess internally. Is that a deciding factor? No, but it does mean something. Of course, nothing means as much as winning.
McGinn's visions are very urbanist, and they contrast with the older, more middle-brow Seattle. They hint at where Seattle has been trending: childless, young, driven by the "creative class," not the middle or working class. Hard greens have been dubbed as elitist, out of touch with the people on things like carless days, widespread road tolling, bag taxes. McGinn's list of backers is stocked with people who push these policies, conventional wisdom on Capitol Hill, still strange in South or West or even much of North Seattle. My hunch is that you'll be able to correlate the election results with density: The higher it is, the more they like McGinn.
Despite his first-place win in the primary, McGinn is clearly the anti-establishment candidate, the one people are afraid of. While he's a dealmaker, he's a tough negotiator and enough of an outsider that he can shake things up. He's also a potential fly in the ointment of the City Council's planned takeover of city government. They have to work with whomever wins, but Mallahan seems so much more malleable — and much more in tune with the council status quo, which was pretty hard to distinguish from Nickels himself. Only one retiring council member chose to challenge Nickels, when everyone else wanted to. Now, they'll be jockeying to reassert power and set themselves up for 2013 on the bet that the next mayor is a one-termer.
For those suffering from Nickels nostalgia, Mallahan is your best bet; he's Nickels-lite. If you want a visionary lawyer to shake things up and build a denser city, McGinn is your guy. If you don't want either, you — I mean we — have a tough choice to make on Tuesday.
If you want to make your case to a still-undecided voter, please do so in the comments below.
Comments:
Posted Wed, Oct 28, 7:18 a.m. Inappropriate
You made the case for McGinn so well that I am surprised you have any doubts: brains over malleability seems pretty clear.
Posted Wed, Oct 28, 8:51 a.m. Inappropriate
Great discussion Knute but as in all reporting on candidates, not much mention of administrative abilities. Given falling revenues, an operating background desperately needed to get more out of fewer dollars, as well as sophistication around labor issues. Both candidates grossly lacking in both areas, and have made no useful representations on how they'll address them. McGinn has rep in green community as overbearing and self-centered, and as a lawyer, has no experience in executing change. Mallahan is a business idea guy with virtually no sense of the culture of public agencies and how to deal with political processes, constituents, interest groups (except to say yes). I too am stuck on who to choose from two incredibly weak candidates; our political process/class has failed us greatly in providing this choice among lessers.
Posted Wed, Oct 28, 9:02 a.m. Inappropriate
It seems that both candidates are short on governmental experience. This is a good thing, I believe. Being can and should be about organizing people and moving smart ideas forward.
McGinn is the clear choice on this front. He has worked successfully to oppose bad legislation supported by the powerful (Roads and Transit) and support good legislation that was opposed by the powerful (the parks levy) as well as leadership and organizational experience in the Sierra Club and Great City.
Mallahan hasn't led any group larger than 20 (including his own campaign) and is clearly bought and sold by Seattle's power brokers. If this is what you want for our city, go ahead and vote for Joe.
I am voting for experience, intelligence and organization.
Posted Wed, Oct 28, 9:46 a.m. Inappropriate
Good article, Knute. Both candidates are equally inexperienced and they respond to that inexperience in completely opposite ways. Mallahan often stumbles and admits he has lots to learn, while McGinn talks like he knows the answer to everything, despite some incredibly naive ideas on how he will save the city and the planet. For me the bottom line in making my decision on who to vote for is how he deals with his own flaws. Mallahan is honestly imperfect, while McGinn is dishonestly perfect. I'm going with honestly imperfect.
Posted Wed, Oct 28, 9:51 a.m. Inappropriate
"McGinn has insisted that his campaign is an exemplar of how he would run the city: open, personal, direct." McGinn's campaign has been deceitful and dishonest, using every dirty trick from Karl Rove's playbook - there is no reason to believe his administration would be different. His tactics are documented at
http://lightandair.wordpress.com/
Character is now the big issue of the Seattle Mayoral race.
Posted Wed, Oct 28, 10:12 a.m. Inappropriate
This is the best summary of the mayoral race I've read yet. Well done.
Ultimately, I was won over by McGinn's intelligence and competence. He's the one with the ambition and drive to tackle the pragmatic stuff - fixing potholes, the public schools, etc. I don't agree with McGinn on everything, and I'm as wary of the idealistic Capitol Hill crowd as you are (perhaps more so because that's the crowd I run with). But frankly, I don't see his idealism translating into anything concrete, and that's a good thing. As the bag tax proved, the mayor simply doesn't have the power to ram unpopular policies down the city's throat.
As for Mallahan, I just couldn't bring myself to vote for an empty-headed middle manager who wants to be mayor because his meaningless career in the corporate world has run its course. And he should be ashamed of his apathetic voting record.
Posted Wed, Oct 28, 11:07 a.m. Inappropriate
Nice piece, Skip. One thing, however, you didn't explore is how the candidates engage with the voters, which could indicate how they might deal with citizens once elected. McGinn has been all over the city holding town hall meetings, meet-and-greets with interest groups (I was invited to one), and he's talking to folks one-on-one. The campaign invited the Seattle Heritage Coalition (I'm chair) to write a policy paper on historic preservation. Ultimately, the paper came too late in the campaign to pass muster with his handlers, but at least we were asked.
The Mallahan campaign, on the other hand, has apparently taken opacity lessons from Nickels. SHC asked repeatedly for Mallahan's views on historic preservation policy and support for heritage organizations, and we've heard nothin', zero, nada. I find his latest campaign mailing laughable; it says he has an "ability to listen." Since when? He's not listening to the heritage community. Maybe his handlers are to blame; we're not a big enough voting bloc in the eyes of his "professional" campaign managers. We can't offer an endorsement, and he's all about notches in his pistol handle, apparently. And it's not just SHC he's ignoring. As you pointed out, he's ignored Historic Seattle as well.
I feel that if McGinn is elected, he will be accessible and open to ideas. A Mallahan regime, however, shows all the signs of an aloofness worthy of George W. Bush.
Posted Wed, Oct 28, 11:46 a.m. Inappropriate
Transportation planning still leads as a determining factor in the mayoral pick. I regretfully conclude that SDOT and WsDOT are so incompetent, corruption cannot be ruled out. WsDOT negligently took too many years to formulate a viable AWV replacement and their "final offer" of the Deep-bore still appears to be the inferior tunnel option. SDOT marched lockstep with WsDOT and produced a likewise inferior redesign of Alaskan Way boulevard and further complicated the Mercer Mess. As much as I support light rail and streetcar systems, I dread expansion according to current Sound Transit designs.
The candidate more likely to bring accountability and needed reform to Departments Of Transportation and Seattle transit agencies is Mike McGinn.
Posted Wed, Oct 28, 12:03 p.m. Inappropriate
Gosh, Knute, at least this week you did not call Mallahan a shill. Mighty big of you.
The Mallahan and the tunnel "boondoggle" vs McGinn Surface Street Option, reducing 520 from 6 lanes to 4, and all the other stuff that requires cooperation from all the people he intends to fight for the next few years "boondoggle"
I just do not see McGinn getting anything done that he actually controls, zero. He will be one-and-done before the legislature does backflips for him.
McGinn's communication is much smoother, and devisive. That is who he is to me. Are we really going to work unilaterally on everything, even the things we do not have control over?
Mallahan, my vote is in the mail. As poor of a communicator as he is, is communicating inclusiveness. He does express an understanding of the interconnections between people and situations.
Their predispositions exclude, or include, more and varied information. On that front, I will select the Kool-Aid free candidate for Mayor of Seattle, Joe Mallahan.
Posted Wed, Oct 28, 1:20 p.m. Inappropriate
So, after all we've heard about how "McGinn rides his bicycle to work", and now we learn it's an electric bicycle?
Sounds pretty typical for the McGinn campaign.
Posted Wed, Oct 28, 2:12 p.m. Inappropriate
Speaking from a community activist perspective, the last 3 years under Nickels very much has hurt SE Seattle. His vision to become the greenest city in the country subordinated all common sense. Instead of making sure that a city works via police coordination, funding coordination, upzoning for developers and whose voices should be heard (not neighborhoods), we got top-down pre-determined mandates that were fought at the neighborhood council level.
While I'm not a die-hard Mallahan fan by far, what worries me most about McGinn is that I see this ideological bent in him much more than Nickels ever had. Bad pro-density bills such as HB 1490 (which was defeated) will be back en fuego and McGinn will definitely be backing this bill.
And while I'm a keen environmentalist, I refuse to believe that cars are inherently bad if they can run off of clean energy solutions, so I'm not jumping on board to eliminate the car and its infrastructure. McGinn again, is ideologically against the car.
I love my pro-environment brothers and sisters, but the nanny-state, pro-density niche that has become a powerful force here in this state worries me because their priorities are different than just making a city work.
Also, a friend of mine who runs a section 8 developer non-profit agency said that their lobbying group was dealt a huge blow when Nickels was defeated. He wants McGinn because he will fall into Nickel's place so easily for their influences. These are the same people who have taken over SE Seattle's district council and are hell-bent on making sure SE Seattle continues to receive a disproportionate amount of the cities low-income housing; which isn't good for any community; especially one trying to lift itself out of the past 40-years of neglect. A light rail doesn't do it all folks.
Great City? How about Great Schools first (and I don't even have kids!)? Why do we focus on density when our schools are a mess and the housing market is in a slump? How do we solve crime and gang issues? How about making our schools great? How do we turn around SE Seattle? How about making schools down there the best in Seattle then everyone will move down there and turn around the community?
Focus on making SDOT work, the police work, social services work and are held accountable, making DPD not a developer shill, making more parks, making sure our city can operate during a snow storm...McGinn doesn't assure me that he is the best person for this job.
His sights are beyond to make Seattle another Copenhagen in the next 10 years.
So, I guess I will vote for Mallahan not as a pro-Mallahan vote, but because McGinn frankly worries me that we'll get another leader whose head is in the clouds following altruistic purposes that also "coincidentally" happen to stroke his ego and legacy.
Posted Wed, Oct 28, 3:35 p.m. Inappropriate
— Wilbur_Watson
" I am struck by your comment 'The last thing Seattle needs is a CEO.'"
I was struck by this comment as well - I actually think Seattle would benefit from having a CEO as mayor. However, this has nothing do with Mallahan, who is not nor ever will be the CEO of anything.
Mallahan was a VP. He was in charge of customer support, which is where most companies funnel off their dimmest, most pliable managers.
Posted Wed, Oct 28, 6:06 p.m. Inappropriate
That was a good analysis of the situation. However, I like the idea of someone with business experience as mayor, and whatever discomfort I might have with someone who is too pro-business or too pro-developer is tempered by Mallahan's stated commitment to social justice issues.
In the end, for me it came down to the fact that Mallahan's politics are more in line with mine, even though I like McGinn's style better.
Posted Wed, Oct 28, 7:22 p.m. Inappropriate
— Wilbur_Watson
"the attentiveness and quality of customer support is one of the easiest way to distinguish good from bad businesses and it requires sharp minds to do it well."
Fair enough. You may be interested to know that the Washington Better Business Bureau gave Mallahan's customer support organization an F.
http://www.bbb.org/western-washington/business-reviews/cellular-telephone-service-and-supplies/t-mobile-in-bellevue-wa-27026359#
Posted Wed, Oct 28, 7:56 p.m. Inappropriate
Mallahan is not/has not been a CEO. He was a manager. There's a big difference. A CEO's experience would be helpful to a mayor; a manager (including a VP in a company with many VPs) always has someone above him. If he's not suited by personality or intelligence to be a leader, having been a manager isn't going to help him.
"Our political process/class has failed us greatly in providing this choice among lessers." Our political process/class doesn't provide us with that. WE have to bring forth good choices in leaders. It's OUR responsibility as citizens. There isn't some political Santa Claus that gives us leaders to vote for.
Posted Wed, Oct 28, 8:48 p.m. Inappropriate
First, I have to 'fess up. I lived in the other Washington for a number of years. The newspaper of record was the Washington Post. So when it comes to politics, my middle name is Cynic. I always vote, but, on occasion, it is a less than stellar exercise. That said, I do listen to all sides. Early on, with Mr. McGinn I got a 'my way or the highway' vibe. This would be perfectly fine if his way were my way. But it is not. The Mayor I want will at least listen. If his decision is different from a goodly percentage of the electorate, I want someone who will provide us with his rationale.
When Mr. McGinn backed away from his 'Hell no, No Tunnel' stance, I saw that as a politician who has read the tea leaves of reality--and knows he needs to do something different to get elected. If elected, I am sure that Mr. McGinn will be there prepared to say. "I told you so." I won't be surprised if the tunnel is more expensive than advertised. I just don't think it's that important. How could I be so silly? I know that no matter how hard we try, we just are unable to calculate all the ifs, whens, and wherefors for complex projects like the tunnel. In my mind the tunnel is the best, and in the end the most fiscally responsible solution. No one has even begun to pencil out Mr. McGinn's alternatives--much less their feasibility.
As we approached election day, Mr. McGinn continued to concern me. He reminds me of Mayor Nickels. I have had more than enough of his management style. I realize this is rather a back-handed way to come to my decision to vote for Mr. Mallahan, but I am happy with it. So Skip, if you want a McGinn nanny-state to replace a Nickels nanny-state, you know who to vote for. If you are willing to take a flyer on a smart, but non-political person, vote for Mr. Mallahan.
Posted Thu, Oct 29, 5:51 a.m. Inappropriate
Yeah great summary. Too bad you can't have the best of both.
Posted Thu, Oct 29, 7:37 a.m. Inappropriate
I don't find McGinn to be direct at all about the tunnel or the costs he's hyping. Yes, it is useful to be skeptical about cost estimates at this stage. But it is not acceptable to lie about them or engage in distortions, unless, I suspect, you view that type of charade as the only way you can get elected. (Which seems to be McGinn's guiding light.)
There are far more important things facing the city. Time to move on.
After watching the debates on TV, I changed my mind and decided to vote for Mallahan. I don't think McGinn will wear well on the city and I suspect his enthusiasm for causes will most likely set them back as opposed to moving them forward, because of his methods.
Posted Thu, Oct 29, 11:10 a.m. Inappropriate
“And I like pragmatism, which he claims to embody.” One person's pragmatism is another person's folly.
Even though we have only Joe’s word that he’s pragmatic, because he has little to no public record, let’s assume he’s right about that. Mallahan’s focus on pragmatism seems more because he doesn’t have a vision or even that many specific ideas. Joe is a manager by training, and managers are hired to implement and problem solve—employ best practices, track to given objectives, make a change here, make a change there. In Joe’s case, pragmatism becomes proxy for what others want and for what has been done in the past. Pragmatism is not leadership. Pragmatism takes us down the road well traveled. Maybe, Joe should be running one of the city departments. That sounds like a place for a person to “drive efficiencies” and keep things “moving forward”.
During these times of extraordinary challenge, I’m thinking we instead need a leader to help us generate new objectives and to choose managers who bring old and new ways of getting to these new objectives. It’s pretty clear to me the path that has lead us to this point in time has many faults, and continuing to deploy ‘practical’ solutions will almost certainly produce a future a lot like our present.
“but voting is voluntary — not a duty but a right to be exercised, or not.”
One can argue that not-voting is acceptable, voluntary behavior for the typical citizen. I wouldn’t, but others reasonably might. I know people who don't vote and claim that their vote doesn't matter or that voting only condones a broken system. However, for an aspiring politician who said he has been intending for years to run for public office, I don’t think that not voting most of the time is acceptable behavior. It’s more a sign “that he has awakened from a political slumber”. To think a person can go from sleeping, to sleep walking to running the city? Leading city government is a complex task, requiring years of study and practice in the trenches.
“who will build a better one?”
My experience is life is that debate, competition and watch-dogging produce better results than cheerleading.
-morgan
Posted Thu, Oct 29, 1:38 p.m. Inappropriate
This is by far the best article about about McGinn & Mallahan--at least it's my favorite. Unlike most people, I'm enjoying the race and to all the grumps out there, this is democracy.
I've had the opportunity to work on Seattle transportation & parks issues with McGinn, there has been no opportunity to work with Mallahan because he hasn't done anything, even though as a Wallingford resident, he should have had plenty of opportunities. There is nothing to measure Mallahan's successes or failures and sorry, Seattle does not need a manager, that's what city staff and heads of departments do--manage.
We know McGinn does have the wherewithall to build coalitions and make things happen. I worked hard to get rid of Nickels so Mallahan's choice of advisors leaves me cold. No Nickels-lite for me. Seattle needs McGinn!
Posted Sat, Oct 31, 12:52 a.m. Inappropriate
President Clinton said "When voters' think, Democrats win"
Mallahan is backed by Republican money all the way.
When voters' think, McGINN WINS.
I'm voting for MIKE McGINN visit YouTube and find out why others in Seattle are also voting for Mike:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXkNEolhTxw
Posted Sat, Oct 31, 11:40 a.m. Inappropriate
Mallahan is the last thing the city and the people of Seattle need. He is a puppet of the interest groups and big business. We dont need a CEO we need a community focused MAYOR. Vote Mike McGinn for Mayor!
http://thegreennw.com/2009/10/seattle-el…
Posted Sun, Nov 1, 1:24 p.m. Inappropriate
Great article Knute--but I still keep wishing for "non of the above".