Originally Posted By Mr X <a href="http://www.time.com/time/specials/2008/personoftheyear/article/0,31682,1861543_1865068,00.html?cnn=yes" target="_blank">http://www.time.com/time/speci...?cnn=yes</a> Works for me.
Originally Posted By DAR I'm shocked about as shocked as seeing snow out my window this time of year.
Originally Posted By Mr X Can you think of a better candidate, DAR? I pondered that before I posted this, and believe it or not just about the only other person I could come up with was Sarah Palin (seriously).
Originally Posted By Mr X Another possibility could've been Paulson/Bernanke, actually. In real terms, they have impacted the world a HECK of a lot more than Obama in 2008.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss Okay, but other than winning an election, he hasn't really done anything yet. Does that merit a Person of the Year award? I dunno. FWIW, I'd say the same thing about McCain if he had won the election and was named PotY. Maybe I am just out of step... I don't know who currently in the news or otherwise that would be deserving of such a title anyway.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Obama's competence fills him with a genuine self-confidence. "I've got a pretty healthy ego," he allows. That's clear when he offers a checklist for voters to use in judging his performance two years from now. It's quite an agenda. Listen: "Have we helped this economy recover from what is the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression? Have we instituted financial regulations and rules of the road that assure this kind of crisis doesn't occur again? Have we created jobs that pay well and allow families to support themselves? Have we made significant progress on reducing the cost of health care and expanding coverage? Have we begun what will probably be a decade-long project to shift America to a new energy economy? Have we begun what may be an even longer project of revitalizing our public-school systems?" There's more: "Have we closed down Guantánamo in a responsible way, put a clear end to torture and restored a balance between the demands of our security and our Constitution? Have we rebuilt alliances around the world effectively? Have I drawn down U.S. troops out of Iraq, and have we strengthened our approach in Afghanistan — not just militarily but also diplomatically and in terms of development? And have we been able to reinvigorate international institutions to deal with transnational threats, like climate change, that we can't solve on our own?"*** I thought this was very interesting and cool... Thoughts? <a href="http://www.time.com/time/specials/2008/personoftheyear/article/0,31682,1861543_1865068_1865069,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.time.com/time/speci...,00.html</a>
Originally Posted By DAR <<Can you think of a better candidate, DAR?>> No that's why I'm not surprised.
Originally Posted By Mr X Ah... Well, I tried to think of a few anyway (I think the Paulson/Bernanke pick would've been ballsier, but on the other hand lots of people would've said "who"? even though they affected each and every life in the world a whole lot more than anyone else this year!).
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan No, wait. My mistake. That was back in 2006 that I won Time Person of the Year (You). Last year was when I was People's Sexiest Man Alive. I always get the two mixed up.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Can you think of a better candidate, DAR?> I can. The American Soldier.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I can. The American Soldier.<< Not really. The soldiers' jobs have been the same since day one in Iraq. It was the changes in policy and leadership that made a difference, and despite assurances that all is well, there's still plenty to be concerned about. More cops on the beat will bring down violence, as will paying people off. There's fragile political progress, but that's not really up to the soldiers. They've done a great job since day one; they were just utterly failed since day one by their commander-in-chief. Obama united a country that was terribly divided (his approval ratings are higher than any previous President-elect since they started polling that question) and energized groups of voters who previously could've cared less. I know we're all supposed to get teary-eyed at the very mention of "the troops," but this time there is someone more deserving. The right man got the title.
Originally Posted By barboy Doug, there is no way grunts 'in country' is a bigger story than Obama. Actually grunts 'in country' would not even make the top 25 stories of '08. I think people are more interested in NASA personnel in diapers, the first non aryan/white/nordic US president, the price of gas at the pumps or Manny's hair and on field antics way more than 'GI Joe' doing tours.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Again, the Time Person of the Year is defined as "the person who most affected the news and our lives, for good or ill, and embodied what was important about the year". Any president is surely going to be in the running for this every year. Obama's story is unique for the reasons ecdc mentioned.
Originally Posted By barboy ///Obama united a country that was terribly divided (his approval ratings are higher than any previous President-elect since they started polling that question) and energized groups of voters who previously could've cared less./// That has absolutely nothing to do with the pick. ***ANY*** president, well almost any, will be chosen regardless of polls and accomplishments. FDR(x3), Truman, Ike(x2), Kennedy, LBJ, Dick(x2), not Ford, Carter, Reagan(x2), Bush, Bubba(x2), Jr(x2). and obviously........ Obama.
Originally Posted By barboy ///That has absolutely nothing to do with the pick./// clarification: Assuming Obama still united the US as you say ecdc and his candidacy generated interest in those who would normally be disintereted but lost the election to Mc ...... Time would have chosen the boring Mc..
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder The mere fact he's the first black president should be more than enough.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The soldiers' jobs have been the same since day one in Iraq.> And they've been doing an excellent job, defeating Al Queda and winning a war, in spite of so many people telling them they couldn't.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>And they've been doing an excellent job, defeating Al Queda and winning a war, in spite of so many people telling them they couldn't.<< That's not true. They've done a great job but they've had inept leadership, so they haven't won a war or defeated al Qaeda. By your logic, a worker at Chrystler who's doing a great job means Chrystler is increasing profitability. It doesn't follow.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <They've done a great job but they've had inept leadership, so they haven't won a war or defeated al Qaeda.> No, that's not true. <By your logic, a worker at Chrystler who's doing a great job means Chrystler is increasing profitability.> No, by my logic, if Chrysler is increasing profitability it means that the workers are doing a great job. Especially if many people and most of the media are telling them it's hopeless.
