Man, this Obama victory has all sorts of added entertainment value. If the crowd at the Corner is reacting this way now, imagine how nutty they’ll get after 20 January.

Yeah, Palin “energized” people—but for every member of the Republican base who got more excited about the vote he or she was going to cast anyway, there was a not-insane Republican or an independent whom Palin totally alienated.  So, yeah, if you want to make Palin Person of the Year, make it because there’s a good argument that she was instrumental in getting Obama elected . . .

I think a case could be made for her as Person of the Year.  Person of the Year isn’t always complimentary; it reflects someone who made a lot of things happen.  And she made a lot of things happen, like getting Obama elected.

Nono!  They just want someone to boost their self-esteem so they won’t feel like the losers they are!

You know, like they do in kindergarten!

Sarah Palin is a person?

Right.  The first black man - heck, the first non-white of any kind - becomes president of the United States, and the VP on the losing ticket (the second woman to occupy said position, 24 years after the first) should be Person of the Year. 

I wonder what color the Sun is in their world.

So would this be Murphy’s Law? or Gowdins?

Perhaps… Joke of the Year?

Hasn’t she already been “Worst Person In The World”?

I think it would be *clearly biased* not to make Joe the Plumber Person of the Year. If they don’t, they clearly hate hard-working, real Americans. And people who pretend to be named Joe, and plumbers.

I don’t know, you could argue that she’s one of the best things to happen to the Democratic party in a long time. If it’s help get her on the 2012 Republican ticket, I am all for it.

“Person of the Year”, nee “Man of the Year”, is sorely misnamed.  One year it wasn’t even a HUMAN (computers).

“NEWSMAKER of the Year” would be much more accurate.  (Another UI clarification task completed!!!)

I thought all good right-wingers HATED Time magazine? Especially their “Person/Thing Of The Year” picks???

Then there’s this:

Media outlets still can do as they please (save for those who choose to hand over their editorial direction to one party or another).

So… Time needs to name Palin as their Person of the Year because if the National Review tried to do it everyone would laugh at us, and that’s mean. 

K-Lo really is some kind of national treasure. Maybe the library of congress can appoint her as Idiot Laureate or something.

I really wish the liberal blogs I read would stop referring to Sarah Palin’s kid as a “Down’s Syndrome Baby.”  He’s a person who happens to have Down Syndrome.  The syndrome isn’t his defining characteristic.

“My spoon is too big…my spoon is too big!!!”

“I am a banana!”

Thanks for reminding me of that.  Oddly, that looks a lot like the Republican message this past election.

Didn’t TIME pick Hitler as Man of the Year? And didn’t they have a stupid Blog of the Year thing that they were so embarrassed by as to drop the whole mess? Of course, with Newsweek, they’re starting to try to appeal to semi-literate fanatics anyway. 666! Palin! Will they get in a contest to see how stupid they can get before losing all their subscribers?

Palin estimates that 90% of wealthy, white, married American couples, who have children and are willing to have more, would have aborted the pregnancy that resulted in the birth of her son with Down’s Syndrome?  Because who wants a “defective” baby, or what?  How condescendingly, presumptuously, self-righteously, obnoxious of her!

I wonder if TIME was exhibiting their obvious Che Gueverra loving pinko commie “liberal media bias” back in December 2000 and December 2004, when they named the REPUBLICAN President-elect the Person of the Year in those respective years?

Here’s a quote from the article:

“But Time shouldn’t diss the not insignificant portion of the country that voted for Republican John McCain. And, specifically, they shouldn’t ignore the people who were energized by the addition of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to his ticket.”

But they SHOULD diss the bigger part of the country who voted for Obama, and SHOULD ignore the people who were energized by his campaign!

Can replicants win “person of the year?”

Best part of the article:

“We’ll never know what could have been in a straight-on Obama vs. Palin contest.”

If anything, the long Democratic primary and the historic election of a minority President should automatically preclude anyone besides Barack Obama (funny how my spell check in Firefox highlighted both words; I bet that changes in a future update).

Also, on a somewhat related note,

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD AND ALL THAT IS HOLY MY ANUS IS BLEEDING

Let me add my voice: the 1938 precedent makes K-Lo’s recommendation entirely meritorious. (And Godwin be damned.)

Thanks to Sarah ‘Bible Spice’ Palin, I now appreciate what people meant by the term ‘Birchers’ .

Mah spoon is too big!!

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD AND ALL THAT IS HOLY MY ANUS IS BLEEDING

WOOOOOOOAAAAAAARRRRGGGHHHH!

That particular scene did spring to mind more than once during your election season.

Palin totally deserves Person of the Year.  She managed to get my 72 year old racist father to vote for Obama.

On the surface, this doesn’t really seem like a fair comparison. Barack Obama will be the leader of the free world for next four years, is the first non-white ever elected president, and is responsible for forever changing the face of politics worldwide. Besides, if you believe the National Review, he’s also our first Muslim socialist terrorist president, which makes him even more remarkable.

Sarah Palin didn’t win, would only have been vice-president if she had won, was 24 years too late to be the first woman nominated by a major party, and is most notable for giving material late-night comics and boners to Rich Lowry. If she had any impact on the Republican ticket, it was either insufficient or negative.

However, there is one very important reason for Time to chose Sarah Palin: she was the subject of a porno, and Barack Obama wasn’t. Choosing Palin would allow Time’s editors to watch porn at work and claim it as research. They’ll do it, too. Two years ago, the Time Person of the Year was “You.” They’ve clearly stopped giving a shit.

“We’ll never know what could have been in a straight-on Obama vs. Palin contest.”

True.  We will never know whether he would have crushed her by 20% or 30%.  We will never know whether she would have won a single state outside the deep south and alaska.

I remember being very irritated in 2001 when the blindingly obvious Person of the Year was Osama Bin Laden and Time weenied out because of their terror of a backlash from idiots who think the designation means “We think this person is swell” and made New York’s firefighters the collective person in the year.

Profiles in courage!

What, nobody wants to point out the blatant bad-research (or more likely no-research) mistake K-Lo made?

When, last December, they declared the 2007 champion “You,” they hit on one of the key ingredients to Obama’s successful strategy…

As Master Mahan correctly notes a few comments above, Time actually made “You” Person of the Year in 200<u>6</u>. “Last December,” 2007’s winner was Vladimir Putin.

She’s a moron.

I don’t know if Palin has enough juice to be Person Of The Year. She wasn’t the first female VP candidate, although I believe she’s quite a bit younger than Geraldine Ferraro was. I don’t think “biggest choke since the 2004 Yankees” is really newsworthy, either, nor does “politician most willing to play the plausibly deniable skank”. In fact I’m pretty sure I can’t think of anyone who’s made the news splash that Obama has, unless Time’s willing to go for another group award like the Blogosphere.

Christmas Gifts!Quality Replica Watches!
Visitors of our website can get a closer look at more than 8000 fabulous high quality watches, 5000 of which are precious Replica Watches imitating in every minute curve of luxurious and expensive watches by Rolex, Chopard, Cartier, IWC, Bvlgari, etc.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!