One of the least shocking choices in recent memory, but the newly uncovered pics from Obama’s college years are pretty interesting – partially because I think they’re the only pics I’ve seen of Obama smoking.
He’s always smokin’.
But yeah, what a boring choice!
But it was the only logical choice.
What is with that hat?
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
I hope it was a loaner from the photographer. Next question- what’s he smoking? 
Uh, you have an alternative suggestion?
Exactly. Yes, it was a boring choice, but if there was ever a year in which one person dominated the news, this was it, and Obama was that person.
Ed
Not to belittle Obama, but outside of becoming the first black American president, Obama hasn’t done anything yet. It seems better to wait until he’s actually done something. They’ll feel rather stupid if he ends up being a dud president. (And yes, I’m aware that Man of the Year doesn’t necessarily mean the person was influential in a good way, but like I said, Obama hasn’t been influential in any way, yet.)
Carter, Reagan and George W. Bush were each named Person of the Year the year they were elected. It only stands to reason that the winner of the U.S. election is probably the top newsmaker that year (at least from Time’s viewpoint) and it lets them say something about the state of the country, which is a big story. If Obama sucks, Time can say they were picking him based on what his win says about the climate of the country and the historic nature of his election, not because they thought he was going to solve all the country’s problems.
Hey- I deserved it. If some of you guys hadn’t dragged me down I might’ve won it again last year.
Damn…I thought the Joe the Dual Shoe Thrower was gonna steal it at the last moment. Just goes to show you that you gotta advertise early and often.
The Person of the Year is supposed to be the person who most dominated the news that year. Barack Obama was the most important person in the news in 2008 regardless of what happens with his Presidency.
It’s the person that “for better or for worse, …has done the most to influence the events of the year.”
While it can an honor, that’s not necessarily the intent and for that reason their choice isn’t always popular with their audience. If you’ll remember Ayatollah Khomeini received it in '79, to much initial outrage until their rationale was explained.
This year though it would appear they got it right in both respects.
And is anyone surprised by this in the slightest?
Likewise, they didn’t pick Bin Laden in 2001 even though he was the most obvious imaginable choice, because they knew the public would go nuts.
So Paris Hilton has been the Woman of the Year for the last three years running?
I can think of at least two women who had a much bigger influence on the news this year than Paris Hilton.
Miley Cyrus and Kim Kardashian?
I heard the only other real candidate was “The American Voter.”
Times was considering Sarah Palin as well. That will definitely lead to a more dramatic commentary.