Sure, Elvis. I’m sure they said that in the 60s, too.
It has to be Bush. Whether he’s a puppet or not, he’s the face of the organization. The man started a war and altered world diplomatic relations immensely for the near future.
Of course, since Bush undeservingly won in 2000 (what a bunch of crap, IMO, just because he won a contentious election? If anything it should have been both Bush and Gore.), I don’t know how Time feels about repeating winners.
But yeah, it’s gotta be Bush.
The award goes to the person who, for better or worse, most influenced the world that year. Puppets don’t have influence.
That responds to the only coherent part of that post.
Bush’s Dad won twice…of course it was from the same year! 
Clinton won twice but the second time he shared it with Ken Starr.
I agree the 2000 Cover should have been Bush/Gore.
But Bush was the winner in 2000. Americans never give much credit to 2nd place.
But their battle defined that whole year.
I think Blair is the best candidate. Not the most LIKELY mind you, but I think he fits the standards best. By taking the US’s side in a highly unpopular war while at the same time trying to hold together the Western alliance, Blair played an enormous part in world politics for today and in the years to come. Remember where the sixteen words originallly came from…
I know the award is based on who defined or influenced a year.
But I’d recognize a man for a century of memories.
Bob Hope. Can’t really think of anyone in recent memory I can admire more for a life well lived. Why not?
Maybe bin Laden can get a make-up win. You know, like Judi Dench winning an Oscar for her 8-minute cameo in Shakespeare in Love. 
This might be a year where TIME might go for another “thing” of the year.
I mean, where does everyone here get their news from?
Not print media, methinks.
I was thinking “Embedded Media” has a good shot.
My guess is that Time would be reluctant to repeat a recent winner like George W. Bush, so I think Tony Blair is a really good choice. If Blair’s government had opposed the war, I think things would have played out a lot differently. I’m not saying the war wouldn’t have happened (though that’s possible) but it would have been different.
Plus, while Bush was using the same tired rhetorical devices for explaning why we needed to go to war, Blair was actually making arguments. Watch one of the Bush/Blair press conferences right before the war. The contrast is striking. Tony Blair would have a much better chance of convincing me the war was a good idea. Bush never had a chance.
My other choice, related to an above posting, would be Gay America. I have a strong feeling 2003 will be remembered as the biggest year for the gay rights movement since the Stonewall uprising. The award is meant for something of global influence, and since events in America have inspired the Vatican to act on the issue and could cause a global schism in the Anglican Communion, I’d say there have been global implications.