Time Magazine's Man of the Year

You left out Attila the Hun, BPB.

thanks Merry feel free to contribute

It is BUSH (the second time)
heraldtribune

Good choice.

I don't even want to comment on my feeling of their choosing Bush. I imagine that when Bill was on it, people on the other side felt the same way.

But this decision shakes up the image of time magazine being a liberal rag. Wonder if that had anything to do with it?

Based upon the immeasurable damage he has caused for the US and the rest of the world. He surely is the man of the year.

It does ZERO to shake up Time's well-deserved image as a liberal rag. It remains decidedly so.


Was it showing a Fascist bent when it named Hitler?

interesting note in that the 3 finalists for Time manof theyear were George Bush/Michael Moore/Mel Gibson (with much debate over Karl Rove vs George Bush)

Who reads Time, anyway?

somebody apparently....considering the speculation and hoo haw over their man of the year pick every year.....they screwed it up this time....

Lest we forget, the purpose of a magazine cover is to sell magazines. Taking nothing away from Bush's achievement, of course.

(Right.....)

Halle Berrys' ass would have been the logical choice then....now there's an achievment...props to God.....

Or Entertainment Weekly's cover shot of Lindsay Lohan.

So the "Yellow Rose of Texas" won. Eeehah! Maybe they should put Jerry Falwell's head on the cover. Bush has his head so far up Falwell's butt, it's hard to separate them.

I don't after this.

I haven't read Time in years but wonder about the article accompanying the cover - or is there one. I presume there is, and it might not all be accolades.

Don't know why there's so much fuss about this. Time magazine has, in the past, had Hitler, Stalin and Ayatollah Khomeini for "man of the year" cover stories. The man of the year is not necessarily meant as an icon to be admired, merely someone who, in the opinion of the editors, has dominated world news more than any other person during the previous year. I suppose binLadin might have been a better choice, but he's been awful quiet lately. Bush's achievement in winning a second term by a narrow margin, in spite of widespread opposition, is to be noted, regardless of what means were used to achieve that lamentable victory. Plus, Time is hardly a bastion of political liberalism, so what did anyone expect?

Plus, the choice of man of the year is clearly from a US perspective. Just as Time Magazine sees the world from a US perspective.

... & a conservative US perspective at that ....

profound sentiment