TIME magazine unveiled the 2012 choice for its iconic Person of the Year cover live on TODAY Wednesday. President Barack Obama is this year’s choice, managing editor Rick Stengel revealed.
On Tuesday, the magazine's short list for this year's Person of the Year cover was revealed on TODAY, and tens of thousands of TODAY.com readers voted among the eight candidates. In addition to President Obama, they included: Marissa Mayer, CEO of Yahoo!; Mohammed Morsi, president of Egypt; Undocumented Americans; Bill and Hillary Clinton; ; Malala Yousafzai, the student activist from Pakistan who survived an assassination attempt by the Taliban; Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple; and the Higgs Boson and Italian physicist Fabiola Giannati.
As it has for the past 85 years, the weekly newsmagazine selected the person (or sometimes group, or thing) that its editors deemed had the single greatest impact during the past year, for better or for worse.
Time’s Person of the Year has been a perennial topic of year-end debate ever since aviator Charles Lindbergh was chosen the first Man of the Year back in 1927 (the title was amended to Person of the Year in 1999). But the title is not necessarily an accolade; while many presidents, political leaders, innovators and captains of industry have been cited, some of the more notorious Persons of the Year include Adolf Hitler in 1938, Joseph Stalin in 1943 and Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. There have also been more conceptual choices, such as “the American Fighting-Man” (1950), “Middle Americans” (1969), and last year’s choice, The Protester.
Person of the Year appears to be chosen on basis of which person (s) can stir the most controversy or grab the most media attention more than anything else, with some quickly fading into obscurity after a year or 2.
IP: Logged
08:27 AM
jaskispyder Member
Posts: 21510 From: Northern MI Registered: Jun 2002
Person of the Year appears to be chosen on basis of which person (s) can stir the most controversy or grab the most media attention more than anything else, with some quickly fading into obscurity after a year or 2.
With the possible exception of Owen D. Young (Founder of RCA among other things...I had to look him up), none of those aforementioned names or groups are the least bit obscure to me. I would imagine any student of American and/or World History (lay or otherwise) since the 30's should be able to identify most if not all of them.
If they're obscure to some, perhaps that's more a statement about our educational system or the xenophobic mindset of the average American than anything else.
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 12-19-2012).]
IP: Logged
09:51 AM
rogergarrison Member
Posts: 49601 From: A Western Caribbean Island/ Columbus, Ohio Registered: Apr 99
What was going on in '88 that this made 'person of the year'?
Fishing crisis. They're just now realizing what happened then. There was a documentary about it recently narrated by Ted Danson, don't remember it's name, but basically commercial fishing may be taking out entire species of fish. At least I think that's what it would have been about.
Fishing crisis. They're just now realizing what happened then. There was a documentary about it recently narrated by Ted Danson, don't remember it's name, but basically commercial fishing may be taking out entire species of fish. At least I think that's what it would have been about.
"The End of The Line" was the film....
Not sure the Time cover was related to overfishing, though....but I stand corrected if that was the case.
IP: Logged
10:41 AM
PFF
System Bot
PURPLE REIGN Member
Posts: 4080 From: Minnesnowta ------------------ Land of White Gold Registered: Sep 2002
Because hes arrogant. Time magazine just gave him another award to prove how great he is.
Isn't........
Little does he know, with the mix of others chose before, this isn't exactly any type of reward it's a precursor to reminding the world how big of lying, pompous a$$ he was when he destroyed America
IP: Logged
10:42 AM
Fats Member
Posts: 5577 From: Wheaton, Mo. Registered: Jan 2012
What was going on in '88 that this made 'person of the year'?
I remember in the 80's we were still being told that we were going to freeze to death. And the hole in the ozone was about to wipe us all out with radiation, and visitors from other planets.
Brad
IP: Logged
10:56 AM
Rickady88GT Member
Posts: 10655 From: Central CA Registered: Dec 2002
Little does he know, with the mix of others chose before, this isn't exactly any type of reward it's a precursor to reminding the world how big of lying, pompous a$$ he was when he destroyed America
Really?
With a few glaring exceptions, the list isn't a particularly bad lot with which to be associated. Which beyond the obvious ones (like Hitler and Stalin...I hope anyway) do you view as somehow unworthy?
Or perhaps the question should be "How many of them are you actually familiar with?"
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 12-19-2012).]
IP: Logged
11:17 AM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
My first reaction fit my thinking of our POTUS. But hey, let's just move on. This is what we have, and history tells us that there is nothing that we can do about it. I am all for letting the man run his course.
Now that we are in our seperate corners, let's reach across the ring and just figure out this thing called America.
IP: Logged
12:49 PM
jaskispyder Member
Posts: 21510 From: Northern MI Registered: Jun 2002
Now that we are in our separate corners, let's reach across the ring and just figure out this thing called America.
Call me a cynic....
Ain't gonna happen....unless something truly catastrophic happens to ALL of us to make the rest of the BS seem trivial and we're forced to think as a unit again.
Tragic that it would take something like that because we all suffer in the interim.
IP: Logged
01:24 PM
PFF
System Bot
frontal lobe Member
Posts: 9042 From: brookfield,wisconsin Registered: Dec 1999
There are just some people who can't let it go.... the would rather sink the ship than find a safe harbor. sad.
You are being a LITTLE hard on the democrats and their treatment of Bush. I would have never characterized them as preferring to sink the ship. But I respect your opinion.
Regarding Time's person of the year, I agree with it being Obama over the other people considered. The advances taken in the conversion of a constitution republic of 200 some years toward a socialist state are truly noteworthy. While he doesn't deserve all the credit, and there are many that have been complicit in the movement, he has been the face and the leader. Definitely award worthy.
IP: Logged
01:27 PM
Tony Kania Member
Posts: 20794 From: The Inland Northwest Registered: Dec 2008
Ain't gonna happen....unless something truly catastrophic happens to ALL of us to make the rest of the BS seem trivial and we're forced to think as a unit again.
Tragic that it would take something like that because we all suffer in the interim.
Sadly, I agree. But, if you haven't noticed, I am just not going to spend my time here bashing our POTUS. The guy has four years, and I just cannot spend those years argueing with the members of this forum over things like this. Now, I will chime in from time to time, but I will be much less abrasive on the subject.
IP: Logged
01:28 PM
Mickey_Moose Member
Posts: 7581 From: Edmonton, AB, Canada Registered: May 2001
Personally I think Malala Yousufzai, the 15-year-old girl who was shot in the head by a Taliban gunman for promoting girls' right to education should have been named person of the year.
IP: Logged
01:40 PM
jaskispyder Member
Posts: 21510 From: Northern MI Registered: Jun 2002
Personally I think Malala Yousufzai, the 15-year-old girl who was shot in the head by a Taliban gunman for promoting girls' right to education should have been named person of the year.
"sky is falling, sky is falling"... but in this case...."socialism is coming, socialism is coming"
Incrementalism. You are living through history. I don't care if you don't realize it until later.
My point of my post was to actually point out being oblivious.
FASCINATING to me that "...we are in our separate corners, let's reach across the ring and just figure out this thing called America." Your response is that some people can't let it go and would rather "sink the ship".
Which is an accusation that republicans will not reach across and figure this thing out.
For 8 years, the democrats did all they could to not reach across and work with Bush. Interesting how you would be oblivious to that, and yet criticize the republicans of doing exactly what the democrats did.
But wait. Boehner has been willing to compromise by allowing an increase in taxes on some people, and also to eliminate some exemptions, thus causing an increase in tax revenues. That sounds like reaching across the ring.
What has been the hold up? Boehner wants the President to figure out this thing called quit spending the Americans to death with trillions more of debt. So he wants the president to cut spending if he is going to put more taxes on the American people.
The president's stance. Increase taxes 1.6 trillion over 10 years. I am going to spend 1.2 trillion of that. And I will put .4 trillion toward the deficit.
And you are calling THAT kind of irresponsible behavior as republicans wanting to sink the ship.
You want people to "reach across the ring", you call, text, or send a letter to your president. Because Boehner is already reaching across, and Obama is the one who isn't.
IP: Logged
02:23 PM
jaskispyder Member
Posts: 21510 From: Northern MI Registered: Jun 2002
Which is an accusation that republicans will not reach across and figure this thing out.
Do you mean the party that spent the last (almost) four years saying "no" to everything? You can talk about the democrats all you want, I am not defending them as they do they same thing. This "fiscal cliff" didn't sneak up on anyone.
IP: Logged
02:54 PM
frontal lobe Member
Posts: 9042 From: brookfield,wisconsin Registered: Dec 1999
Do you mean the party that spent the last (almost) four years saying "no" to everything?
It is "kind of" embarrassing for the democrats to say this kind of thing.
Because they had TWO YEARS where they had the majority in the house of representatives, a super majority in the Senate, and a democratic president.
So what is this "four years" that you speak of? It was TWO years.
They had 2 full years to stick it to the republicans, and the american public.
Did you see any democrats "reaching across"? No. Did I expect it? No.
Remember when Obama was running for the first time? And how he was going to change politics. And he was going to be open and have discussion, and be way less partisan?
Don't try to portray this as some unilateral republican refusal to reach across. It is factually incorrect.
And regarding not seeing the fiscal cliff coming. Are you kidding?
The democrats refused to even pass a yearly BUDGET. Does that sound like a party with any leadership in forward planning? And btw, that included when they controlled both houses. Last budget passed by congress is reportedly April 29, 2009. When DEMOCRATS had control.
IP: Logged
03:17 PM
jaskispyder Member
Posts: 21510 From: Northern MI Registered: Jun 2002
The Washington Post notes that even though Republicans "quickly abandoned" Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) in February when he attempted to block an extension of unemployment benefits, they rallied around the same cause this month.
And the barrage of "no" votes from the GOP has not abated. Republicans are nearly unanimous against nearly every legislative initiative brought up by Democrats.
"Republicans say polls suggest that they can oppose all of these initiatives by casting them into a broader critique of Democrats increasing the size of government and the budget deficit, even if their bills are individually popular with the public."
Said Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK): "We're very comfortable where we're at; we have very few members who feel endangered. We feel like we are reflecting a broader mood of dissatisfaction. Right now, the American people want us saying no."
http://www.policymic.com/ar...p-if-debt-talks-fail While it doesn’t look like the Republican leadership is listening, the voters sure are. In a Pew Poll published yesterday, 53% of Americans said they would blame congressional Republicans if talks on the “fiscal cliff” failed. Only 29% said they’d blame the president.
IP: Logged
03:29 PM
frontal lobe Member
Posts: 9042 From: brookfield,wisconsin Registered: Dec 1999
The Washington Post notes that even though Republicans "quickly abandoned" Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) in February when he attempted to block an extension of unemployment benefits, they rallied around the same cause this month.
Right now, the American people want us saying no."
In a Pew Poll published yesterday, 53% of Americans said they would blame congressional Republicans if talks on the “fiscal cliff” failed. Only 29% said they’d blame the president.
Well, you ignored the 4 year remark that you made. Fine.
But regarding "the party of no". I am one of the American people that WANT the republicans saying no. 99 weeks of unemployment benefits? Are you kidding me. 99 weeks? NO.
1 trillion in debt per year? Are you kidding me. NO.
Regarding 53% of Americans blaming republicans if the fiscal cliff happens, vs. 29% blaming the president, what did you EXPECT?
Listen to how the "discussion" is framed in the media on a constant basis. It is ALWAYS presented as the republicans unwilling to bargain. It is ALWAYS presented as the republicans refusing to allow tax raises.
When do you hear a discussion about reducing spending, and reducing the deficit?
What if the media had a constant drum beat of the president's unwillingness to cut spending and cut the deficit?
During the campaign the first time, Obama said Bush's 500 billion deficit spending in a year was unconscionable. Obama does a trillion dollar deficit for every year. What does the media portray? He HAD to do it. Unemployment goes from near 8.3% to 8.2%. Headline? Unemployment continues to be abysmal? No. Headline-best 'improvement' in unemployment numbers in 18 months.
You REALLY think the poll numbers reflect the actual beliefs and mood of the people, if they weren't fed a constant barrage of propaganda?
OK.
For 8 years, the democrats were the party of no, and they were upholding democratic values, and keeping Bush in check.
2 years of the republicans trying to say no to what democrats want, and suddenly they are "causing gridlock".
Hmmm. Keeping in check for the same activity. Causing gridlock for the same activity.
And you REALLY can't see through that? Well, that's on you.
But then, this is from a person who first blamed the republicans for FOUR years of obstruction, when they had a super majority for TWO of those years!
IP: Logged
03:42 PM
PFF
System Bot
jaskispyder Member
Posts: 21510 From: Northern MI Registered: Jun 2002
99 weeks of unemployment benefits? Are you kidding me. 99 weeks? NO.
You know what, my wife was one of these people who was able to use this benefit. For the first time in her life, she was unemployed. While the wealthy retreated to their estates, the working people couldn't find a job that paid enough to cover the gas to drive to work. Say what you will, but the republican party was, and still is, out of touch with the middle class. And this was seen in their loss of the election.
You seem to blame the democrats a lot, which is fine, but the republicans are no better, yet you support them. Oh... that is right, because they are fighting against Obama and is "socialist" agenda
BTW, I supported Bush, and the republicans, heck, I even supported them in the early years of the Obama administration, but I grew tired of their typical response of "no" on everything that came past them. The American public also got tired of it, as evident in this last election.
IP: Logged
04:00 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
It’s my understanding that the president’s press secretary is sending letters to Newsweek / Cosmo / southern living / road & track and most other publications apologizing for not being their person of the year and stated that he will resolve to do more if reelected for a third term after he rewrites the constitution.
Personally I think Malala Yousufzai, the 15-year-old girl who was shot in the head by a Taliban gunman for promoting girls' right to education should have been named person of the year.
I agree wholeheartedly.
The latest on that is while she is in the hospital in England, back home they have named the school she went to, after her. But the students there are protesting it because they say by doing so, it has marked them for death.
I guess not everyone in her school is as brave as she was. But they are just kids.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 12-19-2012).]
You know what, my wife was one of these people who was able to use this benefit. For the first time in her life, she was unemployed. While the wealthy retreated to their estates, the working people couldn't find a job that paid enough to cover the gas to drive to work. Say what you will, but the republican party was, and still is, out of touch with the middle class. And this was seen in their loss of the election.
You seem to blame the democrats a lot, which is fine, but the republicans are no better, yet you support them. Oh... that is right, because they are fighting against Obama and is "socialist" agenda
BTW, I supported Bush, and the republicans, heck, I even supported them in the early years of the Obama administration, but I grew tired of their typical response of "no" on everything that came past them. The American public also got tired of it, as evident in this last election.
Less than 1/2 of the American public actually.
Giving away free stuff does indeed buy a lot of votes tho. Mine wasn't for sale.
IP: Logged
11:58 PM
Dec 20th, 2012
jaskispyder Member
Posts: 21510 From: Northern MI Registered: Jun 2002
Originally posted by jaskispyder: BTW, I supported Bush, and the republicans, heck, I even supported them in the early years of the Obama administration, but I grew tired of their typical response of "no" on everything that came past them. The American public also got tired of it, as evident in this last election.
I support a no vote when it stops things that are not an improvement.
it's a precursor to reminding the world how big of lying, pompous a$$ he was when he destroyed America
This is what we have, and history tells us that there is nothing that we can do about it. I am all for letting the man run his course. 
