> there's no need to deify him, I think that's the last thing he would have wanted
Well, if you're going to deify someone, a good first criterion is to avoid anyone who does want the position :)
The best presidents were scientists and writers. Jefferson saw himself as a scientist before a politician...
I'm interested in what aspects of Sagan you perceive as not being suitable for political leadership?
Not that I want to imply that I think he was suitable (I've never really considered that particular option) - but I do view with dismay what is typically seen as being required to be an effective politician and it is perhaps interesting to consider the alternatives.
Even so, his contribution to humanity was tremendous, we are very much diminished by his absence.