Last night was the first public candidates forum that included both Nickels and Drago. The media, which loves reporting on conflict, was probably looking for the negative campaigning.

But I think voters want a debate about the future of Seattle. So I try to accomplish two things in my limited speaking time.

First, point out that we have to make good choices in our future — schools, transit, internet infrastructure and community — and oppose the bad choice of the tunnel , whose cost and potential cost over-runs threaten all our other priorities.

Second, demonstrate that I have a record of fighting for Seattle values and winning — fighting for light rail without bad highways, passing the Seattle Parks Levy, forming Great City to bring disparate interests together around building strong neighborhoods, and working in my community for responsible development, sidewalks and the environment.

I know, we all get a little cynical about races, and think “going negative” is pre-ordained for political races. But going negative out of the box means you don’t have something positive to sell. In the Sierra Club, even when urging voters to vote “no” on the Roads and Transit ballot measure, we stayed positive — “vote no, and make the politicians come back with a better plan.” We told voters they had power and we were right. The next year, we passed light rail without billions of dollars in climate-changing highways.

I feel the same way about the tunnel. Stopping the tunnel boondoggle will unlock better and more progressive transportation solutions, and preserve our resources for the priorities we care about.

My instinct is that Seattle voters are pretty smart, so go to the important stuff — how do we build the Seattle we believe in?