I still can't believe they picked Dubya last year. I mean, aside for barely winning the election by like 400 votes, what else did he achieve?
I really felt that Vojislav Kostinica deserved it -- he achieved waaay more and had a bigger impact on more people...., but I guess TIME is a little too ameri-centric....
There seems to be a precedent that whoever gets elected President becomes Man of the Year. This isn't always true, but being elected is quite an accomplishment.
It looks like every President since FDR has been Man of the Year, except for Ford, who wasn't really elected.
<< I still can't believe they picked Dubya last year. I mean, aside for barely winning the election by like 400 votes, what else did he achieve? >>
I saw the editor form Time say that the man of the year would be the man of the year... this was in early december november 00'. They usually know by then who it would be but they were still not sure who it would be so they wrote the article and made the cover for both of them so they could get it out in time.
This year, it probably should be OBL, because he has forever changed the landscape of our planet. But, as McPhreak mentioned "awarding" OBL with Man of the Year distinction may sour a lot of people, whereas awarding Rudy would be uplifting and patriotic. Rudy's definitely a viable candidate and a noble politician, but probably not a true man of the year.
It says anyone who "for better or worse, has most influenced events in the preceding year." this year I cannot think of anyone who has influenced events more that Osama Bin Laden.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.