Who Should Have Been Time’s Person of the Year?
For reasons which may never be fully known, it’s clear that some people are still paying attention when Time magazine trots out its annual gala pageant of naming their Person of the Year.
To the shock and largely muted dismay of one subset of readers, the winner was not Barack Obama. We could spend the day merrily chewing over the relative merits of giving the nod to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, but in light of the long diminished status and stature accorded this recognition, we will likely make better use of our time in reviewing those who failed to win and the unwashed masses who weren’t even nominated.
Before we begin, however, it’s worth noting that there was a time when the Person of the Year award was actually held to mean something. In its heyday, Time magazine was widely read and well-respected, viewed not only as a premier portal of hard news in the dead tree media, but having a board of editors who were seen as both kingmakers and opinion shapers around the globe. Sadly, as time passed and the world grew up in a digital age, their increasingly bizarre choices of winners turned the once prestigious honor into something of a joke.
In a quick tour of the blogosphere, I immediately focused on the coverage of this momentous occasion provided by that most perspicacious of pundits, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air. Ed seemed to take particular glee in pointing out the fact that President Obama not only failed to win, but didn’t even make the top five, bumped out of contention by such notables as Usain Bolt and Nancy Pelosi.
It is at times like this when I almost begin to feel sorry for the president. Poor Barack Obama. When he is awarded some bauble completely beyond his control, such as the Nobel Peace Prize, he is lambasted for being undeserving. If he fails to bring home the laurel wreath in another meaningless beauty contest (over which he also has no control), he is chided for not making the grade.
Rather than focusing on the author’s cogent analysis, I decided to dip a toe into the lively, crowded and never shy comments section of Hot Air readers who struggled to answer Ed’s question of who was really the person of the year. Some interesting dark-horse candidates emerged, such as the Russian hacker cum whistleblower who snatched the CRU climate data emails from out of the ether. Another popular selection was the tea party patriots. (Yes, the award can be given to a group or class of people. In fact, “the Chinese worker” also beat out Barack Obama for top five honors on Time’s final list.) There were other suggestions, such as the American soldier, but let’s face it, you would be hard-pressed to name a year when our military wouldn’t qualify.
Very clever twist at the end. I’d never noticed those obvious parallels. I think Sarah Palin is the most underestimated person of the new century, but I’ve also always had a grudging respect for Hillary.
Oh, my. I wasn’t expecting a hate piece on Sarah Palin when I clicked my mouse here, but I guess that I shouldn’t be surprised. Palin-bashing has become somewhat of a sport, not unlike dog fighting or whatever it is they do with chickens – acceptable in certain quarters.
That’s OK, though. I must admit that my confidence in supporting Sarah has only straightened since the end of the election with a brief head scratch when she threw in the towel as governor.
I don’t think that Sarah cares who the Time Magazine Person of the Year or that it isn’t her, deservedly or not. I think that neither she nor I will read the article, if at all, until our next visit to the dentist.
Carry on.
If the people who run this site are listening, I would prefer to no have this person’s rants be on the list of reading material to show up in the front page here.
The Rabid-Anti-Palin attitude is very much not beneficial to the conservative cause. While I usually enjoy most articles here, and many I do not enjoy at least do not reach the level of trying to be actively insulting to a large part of the conservative people.
This hack even has the gall to use Palin’s name to increase his readership by making an obviously alternately tilted subtitle when his actual intention was to insult.
It would be beneficial for this site to actually try and not imitate the lame stream media’s disregard for the readership.
Daniel Hannan, for putting British Prime Minister Brown, and those wedded to stimuli packages, in their places. How? Well, for starters, this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs
C,mon guys. I don’t think this rises to the level of hit-piece. Sarah has her shortcomings, but as time goes on, she is proving herself to be a leader beyond all expectations. It is always worth pointing out her discrepancies, non-sequiturs, etc. as it has only made her stronger and more focused. It’s very true that if that same light had shone on Obama-Biden, their pathetic worthlessness would have doomed them to a well-deserved oblivion. Mr. Shaw has pointed out some very interesting parallels, but ultimately they fall short. If Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton were put into a “wilderness” environment, who would prevail???? The answer to that is so patently obvious that it doesn’t require a response. Yet, Hillary is head-and -shoulders above most Democrats if everything is reduced to pure pragmatism.
Sarah Palin is an ignorant, vulgar housewife, about as unqualified to be the most powerful person in the world as is that hypocritical reprobate who currently infests the white house.
The morons who are pushing her as their nominee in 2012 are setting themselves up for another loss- and you know who to.
There is no one the jackass party would rather face than puerile, pathetic Palin, who has the “reverse-midas touch”. All of her projects turn into undegradable trash. She is the political equivalent of a nuclear waste dump.
Elephants, either find a really smart, tough elephant, or start humming the Losers March early on.
Quitter of the Year. Quite the honor.
white tger,
Every hear of the term, “transparency”, or “screamingly obvious”? Your mirror is waiting for the next splash.
white tger:
Medicate man! Seriously. And try working on some actual criticisms and avoid the name calling.
president obama-kennedy doesn’t care, he’s been nominated for the nobel in economics.
While I wouldn’t catagorize this article as a “hit piece”, the analogy with Hillary is stretched so thin it barely meets the required logic to qualify for its basic premise…
It’s like saying…”Hey guys, Palin wasn’t mentioned in the Time’s Person of the Year running, but if she was, and since so many of you are pushing her name in the comments sections of a blog about the subject, might I point out how much HILLARY ALSO deserves to be mentioned because of blah, blah, blah…”
Oh, come on…CRY ME A RIVER…wah, wah, wah, wah…
The ONLY REASON Palin is being mentioned by commentators (and not Hillary Who?) is that SHE CONNECTS in a decidingly disturbing way (white tiger?, Now and Then?) with a HUGE swath of Americans!
Take it for what it is, like it or not…IT’S THE TRUTH!!!
AND… I might mention, in such a way it almost REQUIRES authors of “Person of the Year” articles to HAVE TO MENTION HER, if not just in passing, in a way that ends up questioning her popularity with things like…well, what about Hillary??? If Palin, then Hillary, too..!!!!
Give me a break!
Funny thing though…what starts out as an article about OBAMA and what it means for his LACK of being considered or even mentioned, ends up as an an indictment of SARAH for even being mentioned by those pushing her in a COMMENTS section as not being “worthy” because HILLARY ALSO should qualify then…
Nope, she doesn’t, not even close (unless you count being the LEAST effective Secretary of State in memory) and conversely, ANYONE who is drawing the lines of crowds, selling the books, being mentioned EVERYWHERE with ANYTHING she (or he) says or does…DOES QUALIFY…, but I digress…
This article is a “hit piece”…just a bad one!
Palin seems like a good enough gal, but presidential material she is not. Seriously, if she weren’t hot babe, do you anyone would’ve given her the time of day?
Judging by the winner, this list should have been headed up by Bernie Madoff, oh he!! he got caught, if he had just waited till Hoffman, I mean Holder made Attorney General, he would have been a shoe in for sure.
Funny thing…in actually going to the comments section of Ed’s Hot Air article you will find Palin mentioned in only 6-7 posters and many put her down the list at #’s 3, 4, or 5!!!
What’s up with this, Jazz???
Glenn Beck gets mentioned FAR MORE than her!
Why not write about HIM???
Something smells here…and it’s the same ol’, same ol’ Palin bias…
Okay, in going back it looks like Sarah is mentioned about 13 times…
My bad.
The point being, you see an interesting cross section of people who MATTER..
Usain Bolt? Yeah, right.
I’ll take your Bolt and raise you a Taylor Swift!!!
Did Obama finish his term or did he quit (what ostensibly could be a non-term as voting PRESENT can only count for so much)?
If the Times cover had been for “Most Maligned Peron of the Year” Palin would have won hands down.
As for what the Times is really saying:
“Obama has confused our absolutely outrageously positively coverage of him, and his own actual ability. There is no similarity what so ever. Mr. Obama has failed to take this into account regarding his political calculations.”
I’m a left-libertarian, and even from that perspective, think this piece is a barely-disguised misogynistic slam.
I voted for both Clinton and Palin. If Clinton replaced Biden on the Obama ticket in 2012, opposite Palin, Palin would get my vote.
I think anyone who would react with “gales of laughter” to her being Person of the Year (but evidently was surprised it wasn’t Obama) is massively tone deaf. Palin tied a seasoned politician in her debate (at the very least) and in her speeches (while written for her, this is true of every politician) communicated a charisma and passion we didn’t see from anyone else on either ticket in 2008. Having actually read her book — the author of this piece obviously didn’t — it is abundantly clear why she stepped down from her position as governor.
While I disagree with Palin on many of her social positions, I find it impossible not to admire her spirit, wit and practicality. I think she would have been far more effective in the role that Obama (who again, the author of this post seems to believe is POTY qulity) is in now, although I don’t think either of them optimally qualified. But, Palin could be by 2012.
The author’s vendetta says much more about him than about its target.
12. Craig S. Maxwell:
” . . . if she weren’t hot babe, do you anyone would’ve given her the time of day?”
This is the (not so) clear and hidden truth that conservatives will never admit to. How can they without appearing shallow? They have no choice but to play it down with “And her looks don’t hurt either!’ but that doesn’t address why Mary Matalin isn’t running for president.
OKay I don’t normally do posts like this but:
“Jazz Shaw is a heretical, Northeastern former RINO”
Former RINO? Then what are you now besides a Palin hater?
I’m usually up for a good discussion with people I disagree with, and nothing’s changed after reading this piece above. I’m still happy to discuss with an intelligent person. That’s not this freak, J. Shaw. He’s consistently boorish and uninformed, meaning he pisses me off with no gain for me. My time, my choice. No more Shaw.
First. Why is this guy writing here? I’m clicking on this site to get a libertarian/conservative perspective, not a liberal/moronic one.
Second. The guidelines for the comments section says “avoid ad hominem attacks” yet this piece is one big ad hominem attack. Not a single argument over substance.
And the “She quit” mantra. Get it into your head. SHE COULDN’T AFFORD IT. There were 11 lawsuits and investigations all of which were unsubstantiated, all of which she had to pay lawyers out of her OWN POCKET to fight. It’s a simple matter matter of calculation: How much does it cost? How much is in the bank account.
Please remove this ignoramus from this site, please.
JL wrote: “Why is this guy writing here…I’m clicking on this site to get a libertarian/conservative persepctive not a liberal/moronic one”
And then you talk about ad hominem attacks?
Anyway, the stakes for women in Sarah Palin’s beatification are enormous. Whomever becomes the first female holder of major public office here–President or Vice President–is going to become, fairly or unfairly (the latter obviously) a representative of the entire female race. She is not up to the task. She will become the whipping boy (look at that phallo-centric language) for female kind. Whatever foibles she possesses, and she possesses plenty, will be transposed as a condemnation of the entire female sex.
There are many other Republican (conservative, libertarian women, JL) whom I would rather see representing our cause.
She is NOT self made. She is media made and the media will take her down because she lacks the basic intellectual and, yes, common sense sensibilities to prevent this scenario. She is all about ambition, she is a product of this society–style over substance–and that style will crucify her–I hope. (pardon the religious metaphor–well not religious, Crucifiction was a widespread practice before the Romans–anyone remember Tyre and Alexander?)
Anyway, a lot more is at stake here than those who accuse Cons and Libs of “Palin-Bashing” realize.
Whiskey is probably cheering the anti-woman (not anti-feminist) trope one, however…..
23. George Son:
“Whomever becomes the first female holder of major public office here–President or Vice President–is going to become, fairly or unfairly (the latter obviously) a representative of the entire female race.”
So sex is a race thing? I thought it was a gender thing.
So, we can be assured that because you think this way that you now think:
All blacks are completely incapable of being executive officers, because it is quite clear that the first black president has absolutely no capacity in this regard.
All blacks are extraordinary readers of teleprompters, but complete gibbering idiots if the teleprompter fails.
The list could go on since Barack Obama has an extremely long list of characteristics, but I think you get my point. If you do not think this is true, then why on earth would you think it would be true for women? You have serious issues, and my question would be, are you progressive, liberal or retarded?
This article is purposely disingenuous. Man of the Year was never awarded for accomplishments. It was ALWAYS based on newsworthiness. It was about who sells the papers and magazines; who gets talked about; who is INTERESTING?
Say what you want about Sarah, she is interesting and sells copy. Books, too, it seems. Lots of them. People camp out overnight in the effing freezing cold to meet her. Her personal story is great. Her potential as Prez is INTERESTING. SHE is INTERESTING! Most people love or hate her. They ALL know who she is. She is hands-down the most “deserving” of the “award” based on the ACTUAL criteria.
This is, therefore, a hit-piece from a Liberal in RINO clothing.
“Who Should Have Been Time’s Person of the Year?”
I haven’t thought about it much, but I reckon that guy who landed the plane in the hudson should get a mention. Somebody who just did his job, really well. Not enough of that gets credited (IMHO)
Or that Australian Federal Police runner who tapped the chinese torch-guard, and told him to back off, on the run through canberra – he’d get a vote from me too. That one, tiny little nod to sovereignty in a sea of butt-kissing. It was small, and pretty much everyone would have have missed it, but just one guy didn’t let the chinese happy-love-machine cross the line.
There’s even video! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJaLbhCFqvo
Beyond that I’d have to think about what’s happened during the year, and that’s too much effort.
Jazz Shaw is proving to have even less intelligence than he thinks Sarah Palin has.
The Times Person of the Year is a man, woman, couple, group, idea, place, or machine that “for better or for worse, has done the most to influence the events of the year.”
Two words: Death Panels
Certainly she should win it, as the representative of the Tea Party movement, for ‘death panels’ for kneecapping cap n trade, for putting the climategate
revelations toward derailing Copenhagen, for supporting the American soldier, sailor, and airman. Jazz started on the right track, then drifted into a blizzard
There were Americans who accused Churchill, during the Second World War, of willing to fight to the last American to preserve the British Empire. From there, we see the American equivalent of the Middle Kingdom Complex, namely that life is gauged by the American ideal.
Well, that is only one way of looking at life. And if you think that I have an axe to grind, and only demonize Americans, why in blazes did I have good things to say about this, especially the first paragraph: http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/168/36565.html
The idea that Palin has yet done anything to make Her “Person of the Year” is absurd. Not because she is an idiot or a moron or uneducated or dumb or anything like that… She simply doesn’t yet deserve such a title(like someone’s Peace Prize). If you’re gonna be “Person of the Year” your actions have to impact EVERYONE (or as close as possible)… its about who helped shape the year, not who is most popular among some people. She hasn’t yet done something that overwhelmingly shaped the country or the world or the year.
She wrote a book, which is good but a common sort of thing.
She gave some private lectures, did a tour… again not something year-shaping.
She supported the Tea Partiers… but she neither founded nor shaped that group… they seem to be a power on their own that may LIKE Sarah, but are not DUE TO Sarah.
Bernake, on the other hand is at the center of one of the dominating issues of the year. One that has split the nation and its value has yet to be seen as positive. For good or ill, Bernake shaped this year far more than Sarah… in fact, the top five all did. Not a slam at Sarah, just the facts.
Mr. Shaw: the person you should feel for is you and most of the high school drop outs here..
Lokk here you black and muslim hating simpletons: Obama will be running the show for the next 7 years.. get over it…
Anon: Happy that you can spell retarded.
Ever heard of double standards for men and women?
Set foot in even the most liberal classroom today, and I have been in plenty of them, and ask the question about a woman as President, and see what even the most “enlightened” student will reply about a woman’s capacity to be leader of the free world.
And your logic…. Becaus I think that women will be judged by Sarah Palin I now thing all blacks are incapable of governing? Not what I think. What I KNOW some other people think. But again, the “sex thing” (gender is socially constructed and the use of race was a colloqiual term I am surprised you were not familiar with–like your unfamiliarity with irony, apparently) is not equivalent to the “race thing” when mediated by the “XY thing”.
George Son:
Oops, not sure why my post came out as anon,
I actually was quite confident that you did not think that all blacks are incapable of governing. That is why I put it the way I did. Obviously your thinking is flawed, most people do not prejudge groups of people, only a select few do.
Gender is socially constructed, but race is not? Interesting. 90% of blacks vote for one party, and never even think about voting for the other party under any circumstance, that my friend is a socially constructed culture that is outside the normative American Culture, as no other single group is that stuck on group think and cannot escape their self made prison. I think we can look at women and see that they are not in lock step with one another.
Always instructive to listen to those who malign Sarah Palin.
“She’s too stupid” = she’s pretty and that makes us hate her.
“She has no accomplishments” = she did it on her own against entrenched politicians.
“She quit” = she got out when the liberal hit squads made it economically impossible to govern. = Obama campaigned for his entire House term and failed to represent those who voted for him.
#30 Ratatosk – Gotta disagree. Bernankemay be having his usual bad effect. It results in banks not lending, so the economy stays jammed up. However, the healthcare boondoggle is about grossly expanding the authority of the Federal Government. It was losing popularity already, but when SP came out with “death panels”, the rout was on. Now, 62% of those polled oppose healthcare overhaul.
Nothing is more significant than the overthrow of America. Healthcare, AGW, and the Tea Parties are THE stories, and SP has had weight in these things. Palin is E F Hutton. When she speaks, people listen. Whether you think she “deserves it” or not, is immaterial. It still moves!
Marc,
That’s a pretty iffy argument there. I’m not trying to bust Palin, just arguing that no one should get honors before they actually accomplish something real. Maybe she’ll hit Person of the Year in 2012.
Oh, no, bad news. Palin has been horribly disfigured in bus accident. She wasn’t actually on the bus, despite her claims to he contrary. The bus was actually shuttling passengers off of a a stalled MD80 jet when it clipped Palin as she stepped from her limo to the stairs of her Gulf Stream. Early reports indicate that she suffered disfiguring injuries to her face, breasts and butt. First Survivor Todd Palin offered this statement, “Despite the fact that Sarah will now look more like Phyllis Schafley than the Sarah we’ve come to know, this will have no impact on her role in the conservative movement. And while she and I have agreed to separate, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that she’s, well fugly now.”
#37
“Now and Then” = bottomless drivel.
38. Tom Paine:
Don’t worry, Tom, it was a joke. Palin isn’t really fugly. A fraud? Absolutely, but she’s still darn cute.
Maybe in ten years or more she will be another Reagan,but right now she is at the Presidents of the Hollywood Actors Guild or GE Theater stage. Even as an ex-gov, there is not enough experience and substance yet to match what RR had after he was a governor. The problem is that a lot of people who love her do not have enough common sense to know that she has to wait for a while.
Some do, though.
Obama, despite his youth, is smooth and slick enough to get by. She is not that type and needs experience and scar tissue to be able to maintain focus and equilibrium and deal with the give and take in a national campaign…or national office.
That having been said, I think that she has a decent chance of becoming President in more than five, but less than ten years.
BO quit the senate to become POTUS. Rahm Emmanuel having just been reelected to congress quit to become chief of staff. Ellen Tauscher quit congress to work in the state dept. Sebelius quit to work in DC. Mel Martinez abruptly quit the senate. Shrillary Clinton quit the senate. All democraps!!………..shall i go on?
#39 and #40,
39. Let’s see, all you can do is attack without substance and try to demean SP. That’s humour? Pretty low brow.
We know more about Palin than we will ever know about Barry due to the fact that he is not transparent and has spent millions to obfuscate the truth about his real accomplishments. Never mind that the lame stream media refuses to investigate anything that might cast him in a less than glowing light.
40. So you too demean her supporters, not enough commo sense, eh? Well we know enough to recognize pompous blowhards when we see them. I would take someone who may be a little less than “smooth” who is governed by a a desire to protect this land and to do what is in the best interests of it’s citizens over some puffed up saviour wannabe. In case you haven’t noticed his poll numbers, he’s tanking and Palin is climbing, even as she receives more of the same treatment from the libtards in the dino-media.
Palin 2012 – Change you’ll Be begging for.
Humorous cartoon that compares the “Principles” of Sarah with Obama at http://drawfortruth.wordpress.com/category/politics/
41:
Most of those people, at least the ones we call “successful” quit their positions in order to run for office or take a new office, not to launch a book tour like SP. successful people don’t quit. SP is person of the year only to the extreme loser anti-thinking, anti-science section of the right wing, to the rest of us she is a joke. it’s almost 2010 it’s time people got over SP, her moment is done, and to continue on in this morbid fascination will only rot any chance for the republican party to challenge for POTUS.
One of the differences you chose to ignore is Sarah started farther back and made more progress on her own than Hillary. Another inconvenient similarity that you left out is that either lady would have made a better President than obama.