Submit your comment

Your comment

Posted by Archibald Aung in Stanford, CA
You should be ashamed of your current POY covers. For a person well-acquainted with POY covers, I am disappointed by every POY cover in last decade, except the Man of the Century, and 2007's YOU. Last year, the last straw came with full-blown shot of Putin, which is less appealing then your alternate cover choices. IN POY, we are talking about the issues that readers might want to keep and treasure. You should pay more attention to choosing them.

Posted by MaGioZal in São Paulo, SP, Brazil
I think there is a problem in the “worst covers” section: maybe people, based on the sliders of the “best covers” section, are voting with higher scores the covers which they consider less, not more worse.

Posted by MaGioZal in São Paulo, SP, Brazil
Anyway, IMHO I think the “magnum opus” of high-quality cover designs of TIME Magazine has been between the 1940’s until the end of the 1960’s (the covers of Hitler face crossed in blood and the “Is God Dead?” are from this period).

And the worst era of TIME covers was between the 1970’s and the 1990’s, with special mention to the 1980’s, a decade when we see the lowest levels of cover design.

Posted by Bill M in Canton, MI
I'm surprised to find the 1945 X over the Japanese flag cover listed among the worst covers. It is perhaps not politically correct, but it is unquestionably striking and powerful. In the context of the times, it is understandable if not perhaps justified. Certainly many families kept a copy of that issue among their memorabilia of the era. I'm a little disappointed there was no narrative accompanying the choices as to why they are considered so good/bad. I'm sure the writers could have had fun with that.

Posted by David Holland in Brisbane
Being 13.

Posted by Ian Gourlay in Toronto
What about the cover in the seventies that said the world was going in to an ice age, trying to forget that one with global warming on the agenda now.

Posted by Ian Gourlay in Toronto
What about the cover in the seventies that said the world was going in to an ice age, trying to forget that one with global warming on the agenda now.

Posted by Kit Gilchrist in Edinburgh, Scotland
Some of TIME's very best covers come from the magazine's very beginning in 1923. The idea of a sketched portrait offhandedly signed by the artist looked really nice. Over time, however, the magazine has evolved, which will always happen. It would be nice, though, to have a 2008 cover that took TIME back to its roots. Perhaps an iPhone sketch?

Posted by Darlene Yordon in Daytona Beach
I LOVED the one "Will You Ever be able to Retire?". The granny on roller skates serving hamburgers.....THAT is me!!! I really need to order that print to place over my desk. Thanks

Posted by Kate Leighton in San Clemente, CA
My favorite cover was a headshot of Bill Clinton. The placement of the "M" in TIME made it look like he had red devil horns coming out of the top of his head. As a non-democrat I was greatly amused.

Posted by Your Name in Your City
BEST: The American Soldier from 90s sometime.

Posted by Wendy in Salt Lake City
Favorite TIME cover: Princess Diana (1997).

Great magazine!

Posted by John Candler in Henryetta
My favorite is the one featuring Einstein. He was a thinker, and only throug thinking can we improve ourselves, our planet, and the future for our children and grandchildren.

Posted by Your Name in Your City
Your comment Baby Enron

Posted by DeeCee in Los Angeles
Your 2001 Man of the Year cover featuring Giuliani as a Tower of Strength was appropriate and poignant.

Posted by Brendan in New York
Louis Armstrong cover is the best.

Posted by Ellyn Stecker in So. Bend, IN
Dolores Huerta pointed out in a talk at St. Mary's College, Notre Dame,, IN tonite that Nancy Pelosi had not been on the cover of any major news magazine except for MS even though she became 3rd in line for the Presidency one year ago. I thought, No, that cannot be right. But so it seems. This is an omission that should be corrected. thank you. Ellyn Stecker

Posted by Rush in Columbus, GA
The April 20, 2007 cover featuring photos of most of the victims of that week's massacre at Virginia Tech. What a poignant way to refocus the spotlight on those who were victims, away from the gunman who sought to become a posthumous media star. The cover honored those whose promising lives were stopped cruelly short.

Posted by munir ahmad kakar in quetta pakistan
I would go for the one wherein Einstein was deservedly declared man of the century. The future of humanity is inextricably linked with science and hence more einsteins. In this part of the world we are terrorized by relegious obscurintists and it is the knowledge and science which can come to our rescue.

Posted by dawn in Greenville,North Carolina
i like the time cover with Ellen Degeneres on it and it sais yep i am gay

Posted by Edith Avalos in Los Angeles
I loved the cover with Ellen Degeneres on it. I thought that it was fantastic that she came out on TIME. My respect for this magazine and the people who run it grew so much. Thanks TIME for all your work.

Posted by Mark in Fort Wayne
The 1986 Molly Ringwald cover of course!!!

Posted by Dennis Chuba in Elk River, MN
Your comment The January 31. 1977 cover about "The Big Freeze" would be interesting to revisit.

Posted by Susan in Orange City, Iowa
Ellen DeGenere coming out paved the way for homosexuals to do the same and for the media to be more open minded to the issue. Of course with recent events, open mindedness to the gay population has stirred up mixed feelings, but I think Ellen's cover was the best in that era!

Posted by Tola in Poland
Ellen DeGeneres Should Won because she is the truest Person in the world ..she made everyones laugh everyday and she is the most amazing woman who is helping many ppl .. and Thats why Ellen Cover Should be #1 and its gonna be :D

Posted by James Wilkinson in Sydney, Australia
The first TIME magazine i bought was back in 1994 and the smiling face of Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis caught my attention. She was a remarkable woman and the photograph of her is beautiful and timeless. A very worthy person for the cover, and her influence can still be seen today.

Posted by Your Name in Your City
Your comment

Posted by Jin in SF
Dalai Lama. Especially with all the political inferno going on right now in China occupied Tibet, Tibetans in exile. It's a good reminder .. we must free Tibet

Posted by joan sorocco in menifee, ca
Your comment Best cover: Marilyn Monroe (no contest - she's the best). As far as celebrities go, no one tody compares - or even comes close. Next best: The CAT cover (cats are such fabulous creatures - they are even used as therapy pets - to lift the spirits of sick or old people. Great companions-can't beat them). They don't only have to be on the cover of Cat Fancy. Put them on the Time cover again,

Posted by nannette yesnono kennedy in sandyeggo california
easily more than one favorite : make that each and every cover. it's all about TIME -- therein lies the discipline . . . they all reach out and speak to me, singularly unique intriguing enticing.

Posted by Heather Matthews in Halifax, NS Canada
The best covers by far are the two Roy Litchenstein covers from the late 60's. The smoking gun and Bobby Kennedy. It was great of Time magazine to have an artist illustrate the covers. More of that should be done now. Not only bring news to the people but bring art to the people as well. There is a discontect between the average person and art. Time magazine could help bridge this gap by using more original art on its covers.

Posted by Dave in Charlotte, NC
C'mon, TIME. What about the (first) O.J. Simpson cover of June 27, 1994? You know, the one you pulled after reader backlash from the 'darkening' of O.J.'s complexion for effect? Definitely your worst, seemingly by your admission as well.

Posted by Dave in Charlotte, NC
C'mon, TIME. What about the (first) O.J. Simpson cover of June 27, 1994? You know, the one you pulled after reader backlash from the 'darkening' of O.J.'s complexion for effect? Definitely your worst, seemingly by your admission as well.

Posted by Eric Witt in Cape Town
Please correct the caption on year 1953. The cover subject is Queen Elizabeth --- not a politician from the 1920s. Thanks, Eric Witt

Posted by David in Chicago
Ellen DeGeneris--#1? Exploiting her sexual orientation in a shameless publicity stunt to save her fading sitcom? It's a shame there wasn't a cover of Rock Hudson when he came out. A more courageous act, and one that made a deep impact on our perceptions of gays and of AIDS.

Posted by FRANK TELLS in NORTHPORT
the cover that should be one of time's worst cover in history is march 17, 2008. vol. 171, no. ii, 2008 we'd rather forget. the one with hillary clinton.

I WANT TO FIX HILLARY CLINTON FOR STAYING WITH BILL WHEN SHE SHOULD HAVE DIVORCED HIM OVER: 1. HIS ANTIMASTURBATION 2. HIS CHEATING ADULTERY ALSO IM AGAINST HER NOT LISTENING TO ME ABOUT VOTING AGAINST THE ANTI POKER BILL (PHONE CALLS, LETTERS) AND RECEIVING FUNDING FROM HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES WHEN THEY ARE ALREADY OVERCHARGING AND AGE DISCRIMINATING. I ALSO BELIEVE LIKE JOE LIEBERMAN THAT BILL CLINTON SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPEACHED AFTER ILLEGALLY CHEATING ON HIS WIFE.

Posted by Mike Durand in Des Moines, IA
Your comment Most Embarrassing cover: Ellen, Yep, I'm gay. WHO CARES?

Posted by Cady in US
Why is the cat cover in the worst category? Did a dog lover put together this list? Cats rule; I would have chosen the cat cover as the BEST Times cover ever.

Posted by Shane in Chapel Hill
Knife in the Water.

Posted by Daniel in Gravina in Puglia, Bari, ITALIA
TUTTE SIETE I MIGLIORI

Posted by orange estates in bangalore(INDIA)
we comment ''we want marketing with ur web site... orange.estates@yahoomail.com; orange.estates@gmail.com;;-(azeez)

Posted by Andres in Madrid
By far, the best TIME cover ever, in my opinion, is the one you published about the Falkland's War, the head was: THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK

Posted by James Ketola in Glencoe, CA
I liked the one with Ho Chi Minh as person of the year the best it said a lot about substituting wishful thinking for a look at reality!

Posted by bill bush in ruffin, nc
Have you read this? If so, why waste time on these silly cover stories? If not, read and weep at your new awareness. Glenn Greenwald MONDAY MARCH 17, 2008 08:27 EDT Time magazine invents facts to claim that Americans support Bush's domestic spying abuses (updated below) No matter how corrupt and sloppy the establishment press becomes, they always find a way to go lower. Time Magazine has just published what it purports to be a news article by Massimo Calabresi claiming that "nobody cares" about the countless abuses of spying powers by the Bush administration; that "Americans are ready to trade diminished privacy, and protection from search and seizure, in exchange for the promise of increased protection of their physical security"; and that the case against unchecked government surveillance powers "hasn't convinced the people." Not a single fact -- not one -- is cited to support these sweeping, false opinions. Worse still -- way worse -- this "news article" decrees the Bush administration to be completely innocent, even well-motivated, even in those instances where technical, irrelevant lawbreaking has been found, as it proclaims: In all the examples of diminished civil liberties, there are few, if any, where the motivating factor was something other than law and order or national security. Does Calabresi or his Time editors have the slightest idea how secret, illegal spying powers have been used, towards what ends they've been employed and with what motives? No, they have absolutely no idea. Not even members of Congressional Intelligence Committees know because the Bush administration has kept all of that concealed. So Time just makes up facts to defend the Bush administration with wholly baseless statements that one would expect to come pouring out of the mouths only of Dana Perino and Bill Kristol -- the "motivating factor" for secret, illegal spying was nothing "other than law and order or national security." This article literally has more factual errors -- pure, retraction-level falsehoods -- than it has paragraphs. It makes Joe Klein look like a knowledgable and conscientious surveillance expert. It's one of the most falsehood-plagued articles I've seen in quite some time. Let's just count the ways this article includes demonstrably false assertions, purely based on facts:

(1) Time claims that "nobody cares" about the Government's increased spying powers and that "polling consistently supports that conclusion." They don't cite a single poll because that assertion is blatantly false. Just this weekend, a new poll released by Scripps Howard News Service and Ohio University proves that exactly the opposite is true. That poll shows that the percentage of Americans who believe the Federal Government is "very secretive" has doubled in the last two years alone (to 44%) and that "nearly nine in 10 say it's important to know presidential and congressional candidates' positions on open government when deciding who to vote for." The same poll also found that 77% of Americans believe that "the federal government opened mail and monitored phone calls of people in the U.S. without first getting permission from a federal judge," and 64% believe "that the federal government has opened mail or monitored telephone conversations involving members of the news media." Only a small minority (20%) believe that the Federal Government is "Very Open" or "Somewhat Open." Exactly as was true for The Politico's very untimely article last week falsely claiming that Americans are increasingly supporting the Iraq War again -- on the very day that a new USA Today poll showed that Americans overwhelmingly favor unconditional timetables for withdrawal -- Time today asserts a falsehood that is squarely negated by a poll released the day before. The proposition that "polls consistently" find that Americans don't mind incursions into their civil liberties is a rank falsehood. From a December, 2005 CNN poll, days after the NSA scandal was first disclosed: Nearly two-thirds said they are not willing to sacrifice civil liberties to prevent terrorism, as compared to 49 percent saying so in 2002. More importantly, ever since it was revealed that the Bush administration has been spying on Americans without the warrants required by law, polls have consistently shown that huge numbers of Americans -- usually majorities -- oppose warrantless spying, exactly the opposite of what Time just claimed. Much of the polling on warrantless eavesdropping occurred throughout 2006 when the NSA scandal was being debated. Here's what a Quinnipiac poll concluded: By a 76-19 percent margin, American voters say the government should continue monitoring phone calls or e-mail between suspected terrorists in other countries and people in the U.S., according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today. But voters say 55-42 percent that the government should get court orders for this surveillance. Voters in "purple states," 12 states in which there was a popular vote margin of 5 percentage points or less in the 2004 Presidential election, plus Missouri, considered the most accurate barometer of Presidential voting, want wiretap warrants 57 - 39 percent. Red states, where President George W. Bush's margin was more than 5 percent in 2004, disagree 51 - 46 percent with the President that the government does not need warrants. Blue state voters who backed John Kerry by more than 5 percent want warrants 57 - 40 percent, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. A total of 57 percent of voters are "extremely" or "quite" worried that phone and e-mail taps without warrants could be misused to violate people's privacy. But 54 percent believe these taps have prevented some acts of terror. "Don't turn off the wiretaps, most Americans say, but the White House ought to tell a judge first. Even red state voters, who backed President Bush in 2004, want to see a court okay for wiretaps," said Maurice Carroll, Director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. From the beginning, pluralities in the vast majority of states -- 37 out of 50 -- believed the President "clearly" broke the law with his NSA spying. A CBS poll (.pdf) found that Americans believe (51-43%) that "the President does not have the legal authority to authorize wiretapes without a warrant to fight terrorism." And back when Russ Feingold introduced his resolution to censure the President for breaking the law in spying on Americans, a plurality of Americans supported censure of Bush despite the fact that Feingold was virtually alone among political figures in advocating it. And most Americans opposed immunity for telecoms accused of breaking the law in how they spied on Americans: Opposition to immunity is widespread, cutting across ideology and geography. Majorities of liberals, moderates, and conservatives agree that courts should decide the outcomes of these legal actions (liberals: 64% let courts decide, 26% give immunity; moderates: 58% let courts decide, 34% give immunity; conservatives: 50% let courts decide, 38% give immunity). As is so often true, the facts are exactly the opposite of what Time, in defending the Bush administration, tells its readers. Can one find polls in which pluralites of Americans support warrantless eavesdropping and other secret spying programs? If one looks hard enough for polls emphasizing "spying on terrorists," perhaps one can, but Time's assertion that "polling consistently supports the conclusion" that Americans want to give up civil liberties for security is patently false.

(2) This is Time's next claim: Even when the White House, the FBI or the intelligence agencies have acted outside of laws protecting those rights -- such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- the public has by and large shrugged and, through their elected representatives, suggested changing the laws to accommodate activities that may be in breach of them. Have Calabresi and his editors been on vacation for the last four months? During that time, there has been a protracted, bitter debate in Congress over the President's demands for permanent, warrantless eavesdropping powers and amnesty for telecoms which broke the law in spying on Americans. It provoked filibusters and all sorts of obstructionism in the Senate, and House Democrats -- including virtually every conservative "Blue Dog" -- just chose warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty as the issue on which to defy, for the first time ever, the President's national security orders. Additionally, while it is true that the GOP-led Congress largely endorsed every one of the President's policies, including his lawbreaking, the American voting public threw the Republicans out of power in 2006. When Democrats, once in power, began copying their behavior in endorsing even the President's illegal behavior, their approval ratings plummeted. Just last week, they refused to give legal sanction to the President's illegal spying; demanded that the lawsuits arising from that spying proceed; and even passed a bill requiring a full-scale investigation into what the President did when spying on Americans for all those years. These events were bizarrely ignored by Time because they negate the narrative they want to push.

(3) Time's defense of the Bush administration -- that "law and order or national security" has motivated even the illegal spying -- is perhaps most indefensible of all. The administration has blocked every Congressional and judicial attempt to investigate how it has used these spying powers. Thus, nobody has any idea what has motivated the spying or what the level of abuse is. As Julian Sanchez wrote in a superb Op-Ed in the Los Angeles Times this weekend, the Federal Government abused its warrantless spying power for decades -- to spy on political opponents and other dissidents -- but nobody had any idea that was going on until the Church Committee conducted a full-fledged investigation. As Sanchez wrote: If you think an executive branch unchecked by courts won't turn its "national security" surveillance powers to political ends -- well, it would be a first. We have had no investigation into how the Bush administration has used these spying powers. There has been no Church Committee, no intensive media investigation, no judicial process. The only "investigations" into any of these surveillance activities has come from the executive branch itself. All we have are slothful, government-worshiping reporters like Calabresi and Time editors who sit back content in their own ignorance, having no idea how the Bush administration used its spying powers, citing their own total ignorance as proof that the Government did nothing wrong -- they did everything for our own Good, for our Protection. Time's vouching for the Good Motives of the Bush administration is completely false for a separate reason. Even with as little as we know about what they've done, there most certainly are examples of politically-motivated spying, even though Calabresi and his editors are apparently unaware of them. From Democracy Now in 2006: Earlier this week, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network released documents showing that the Pentagon conducted surveillance on a more extensive level than first reported late last year. De-classified documents show that the agency spied on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell' protests and anti-war protests at several universities around the country. They also show that the government monitored student e-mails and planted undercover agents at least one protest. But the Pentagon has not released all information on its surveillance activities. The American Civil Liberties Union recently filed a federal lawsuit to force the agency to turn over additional records. The lawsuit charges that the Pentagon is refusing to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests seeking records on the ACLU, the American Friends Service Committee, Greenpeace, Veterans for Peace and United for Peace and Justice, as well as 26 local groups and activists. Even NBC reported previously: A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Fla., a small group of activists met to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. What they didn't know was that their meeting had come to the attention of the U.S. military. A secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News lists the Lake Worth meeting as a "threat" and one of more than 1,500 "suspicious incidents" across the country over a recent 10-month period. . . . The Defense Department document is the first inside look at how the U.S. military has stepped up intelligence collection inside this country since 9/11, which now includes the monitoring of peaceful anti-war and counter-military recruitment groups. Are Time reporters and editors just blissfully ignorant of these incidents or do they conceal them because they negate their clean, crisp storyline?

(4) The whole Time article is based upon one of the most pervasive journalistic fallacies: namely, that the choices the establishment press makes as to what they will cover and not cover is reflective of what "Americans" generally care about. Thus, Calabresi begins the article by listing a whole series of recent revelations about the Bush administration's ever-increasing Surveillance State powers and abuses and concludes: "to judge from the reaction in the country, nobody cares." But the only ones who "don't care" are establishment media outlets like Time, not the "ordinary Americans" on whose behalf they always fantasize that they speak. It's the media that has ignored those stories. Here is a Nexus count of how much media coverage certain stories have received over the last 30 days, including the Surveillance State stories which Calabresi cites as proof that Americans don't care about their constitutional liberties: * "Spitzer and prostitutes" -- 2,323 results * "Spitzer and Kristen" -- 1,087 results * "Obama and Rezko" -- 1,263 results * "Obama and Jeremiah Wright" -- 466 results * "Wall Street Journal and data mining" -- 9 results * "FBI and National security letters" -- 149 results * "Intelligence Oversight Board" -- 21 results This is what establishment journalists like Calabresi always do. Their industry obsesses on the most vapid, inconsequential chatter. They ignore the stories that actually matter. And then they claim that Americans only care about vapid gossip and not substantive issues -- and point to their own shallow coverage decisions as "proof" of what Americans care about. That thought process was vividly evident with their obsession with the Edwards hair "story," when they all chattered about it endlessly, promoted it in headlines, and then, when criticized for that, claimed that it was obviously something Americans were interested in, pointing to their own media fixation as proof that Americans cared. The Time Magazines of the world ignore stories about Bush's abuses of spying powers. Therefore, Americans don't care about such abuses. That's the self-referential, self-loving rationale on which this entire article is based. And the whole article is filled with demonstrable falsehoods, all in service of arguing that the Bush administration has done nothing wrong, and even if they did, Americans don't mind at all.

UPDATE: Yet another serious factual error in Calabresi's article that I neglected to mention: There are no scandalous examples of the White House using the Patriot Act powers for political purposes or of individual agents using them for personal gain. Has Time ever heard of the U.S. Attorneys scandal, which just resulted in the filing of a Congressional lawsuit to compel recalcitrant Bush aides to comply with Subpoenas? From Harper's Scott Horton on Saturday: This was largely part of an effort to disguise the obvious fact that the dismissals were the implementation of a political plan which had been formulated in the White House, largely under the guidance of Karl Rove. They were also designed to disguise the fact that an elaborate scheme had been concocted to circumvent the process through which candidates are reviewed and confirmed by the Senate using a secret amendment to the USA PATRIOT Act. It's not surprising that this scandal would be whitewashed from the pages of Time, in light of what its Managing Editor, Rick Stengel, decreed last year while on The Chris Matthews Show: Mr. STENGEL: I am so uninterested in the Democrats wanting Karl Rove, because it is so bad for them. Because it shows business as usual, tit for tat, vengeance. That's not what voters want to see. Ms. BORGER: Mm-hmm. MATTHEWS: So instead of like an issue like the war where you can say it's bigger than all of us, its more important than politics, this is politics. Mr. STENGEL: Yes, and it's much less. It's small bore politics. The principal theme of Time Magazine appears to be that corruption and even blatant lawbreaking by the Bush administration is a total non-story, something that nobody cares about and therefore shouldn't be investigated or reported (Joe Klein's first reaction in Time following disclosure of the NSA scandal was to defend the lawbreaking and sternly warn Nancy Pelosi and Democrats generally that they had better not object to the warrantless spying program or else they would be (justifiably) out of power forever). Identically, Calabresi's declaration that the FBI's unquestionably illegal use of NSL powers under the Patriot Act was harmless and benign because the Bush DOJ said so is equally gullible and dishonest. As Patrick Meighan pointed out in comments: In other words, we know that the Justice Department has not intentionally abused its unchecked investigative powers because the Justice Department looked at the Justice Department and decided that the Justice Department did not intentionally abuse its unchecked investigative powers. In 2008, that's what's supposed to pass for checks and balances. It is not surprising that this is the view of Bush followers, but it's also the predominant view of our ornery watchdog journalists as well. The Founders envisioned that the media would be the watchdog over government deceit and corruption, but nobody is more aggressive in dismissing concerns of government lawbreaking and deceit than the Time Magazines of our country. That's their primary function.

Posted by Phil in Owen Sound, ON
The greatest Time magazine cover ever, features the greatest statesman ever. Time's 1941 cover picture of Sir Winston Churchill should stire in the hearts of everyone to day the same emotion he did during the Blitz of London-hope. Churchill was put into office after the disastorous leadership (or lack there of) of Chamberlian. He push the Allies to fight on even when Hitler's army was knocking on Britian's doorstep, if not for Churchill dogged determination the world would be a very different place. We all owe him a great debt, let us all "never surrender"!!

Posted by Dan in Castlegar
How can Mary Poppins not make the top 100 movies of all time? It was one of the most innovative movies of all times in every aspect from music to animation.

Posted by TEODORO TALENS in VALENCIA , SPAIN
Your comment

Favorite TIME cover: RONALD REAGAN.

Posted by Hugo Fuentes Vera in Santiago de Chile
My favorite Time cover is: The Coca Cola, Mayo 15, 1950

Posted by Matt in New York
I was shocked and very upset to see the "Ellen" cover rank #1!! So, in essence, that is to say more readers felt putting her on the cover was greater or more important then say Einstein, Ghandi, Churchill, Jackie Robinson or The Beatles?? What about the events that shaped the 20th century? From WW2 to 9/11 and Katrina, you are trying to tell me Ellen coming out of the closet was more impressive for a Time cover??!! Heck, I think the cover with the cat on it was more impressive then the Ellen cover. Don't get me wrong, I like her, but to say that cover is far and away (by the rankings of respondents) the greatest cover is appalling.

For what it's worth - I think the WTC cover was so heartbreaking, especially for those who are too young to know WW2, it is nearly on pay with the Atomic Bomb droppings in Japan. Which reminds me - that didn't make a top covers list either. Oh, and what is with the Ellen cover getting 13,000 hits, but no other cover cracked 3,000?? Very suspicious.

Posted by Mike Hodis in West Hartford
Bobby Hull by LeRoy Neiman

Posted by Susan in Orange City, Iowa
To Matt in New York...

The voting is not fixed. You can vote as many times as you want and I know I have voted more than once, even twice because in that decade, it was one of the most memorable moments for ME as a gay character came out on TV then Ellen came out in real life... which was a big deal back then. She was persecuted for a long time for that and gays are STILL being persecuted, let alone KILLED for being who we are. Ellen coming out paved the way for other homosexuals to do the same and not be afraid. But I fear it will never end, hate crimes.

Posted by Your Name in Your City
Your comment

Posted by tad in Louisville
I never realized how politically correct your magazine has been for all these years. Your covers betray your hatred for God and all things conservative.

Posted by Lynne Mobley in Wilmington
Oh, and what is with the Ellen cover getting 13,000 hits, but no other cover cracked 3,000?? Very suspicious. VERY SUSPICIOUS INDEED!!!!Somethings up. Why would you want to cheat to win?If I were Ellen, I wouldn't want to win because my fans cheated! I didn't mind her cover. I just don't think she's that popular. maybe someone should look into this.

Posted by Josh Branderson in Athens Georgia
I was suspicious of the Ellen Cover being #1 with so many votes. I went to her fan sites. One fan boasted about voting 10,000 times. Others voting hundreds. I can understand wanting someone to win, but cheating. Her cover is not more important than a few of the other ones. Shame on Time for not having better voting methods!!!!!!!!1

Posted by G. Vickery in Houston
The most memorable cover was definitely of Ellen. Kudos to TIME for that jewel.

Posted by laurie in phoenix
ellen doesn't deserve to be first. i think we should contact time. i'm for the a. e. cover myself!Someone that contributed many positive things to society.

Posted by yulong in Your City
Your comment

Posted by yulong in kunming/China
I like the the Jan 1978 Time's cover.Deng xiaoping became the china's new leader.a sign of china reform. and a memory of Chinese's new life

Posted by Fran in Boston
Can you please find the Time cover, I believe it was in the late 60's/early 70's. I believe it was around the time when the Vietnam war protestor burned the American flag on the Harvard campus. I believe there was a controversy around whether it was ok to burn the flag - or maybe it was some time later when Time just had words on the cover saying something to the effect that because the American flag was a symbol of freedom, that it was reason enough not to burn it. Maybe I have it wrong, but I wish I had saved it, because it made me cry.

Posted by Susan in Orange City, Iowa
Hey, don't blame the voters. Just because we think that was a big icebreaker in the hearts of homosexuals and we want Ellen to win that and you can't see why it was important, then thats your problem. You can vote as many times as you want, thats how it is and thats not the voters fault. And there is no way someone can vote 10,000 times, because she only has 14 thousand votes... so one person is responsible? There is a fan base out there that look up to Ellen for this moment in time when she came out. Back then it was taboo and Ellen suffered a lot for it by losing her sitcom and not getting any work for years, just because she was gay. Now look at her and look at the TV shows now you see on TV. She paved the way for this and thats why I want her to win. We aren't "Cheaters"... how do you cheat on a poll? And look down the list... Bill Clinton is close to 4500 votes... and if you look closely, they are going by the average, not by the number of votes. You may think its fixed, its just not true. There are Ellen fans that take this cover seriously and it was a big deal and it always will be and I'll keep voting until its over. Every day! And I voted for other covers too... geez relax people!

Posted by Tolaoi in Poland
Yeah Good speech Susan :) ..and yall haters who wish that Ellen everything bad..yall can shut up..Gay ppl were never equal ..treated ..So this is the chance to show That Gay ppl are also Ppl who Can win!! Ane Ellen Will Win..no metter what yall think ..

Posted by Lisa in Atlanta
Speaking as a lesbian who doesn't think Ellen is the best cover of all time, I'd like to say I am ashamed at the 5 pathetic women that have spent hours of their time voting for Ellen. I believe Ellen's contribution to the gay/lesbian community is priceless, and ongoing.As an avid Ellen watcher, I also believe she would not like to win by cheating. There are "no rules", correct. The people at Time probably expect you to be honest and fair. I am sickened by your childish behavior. Ellen has done so much to move us forward, yet you make us look like childish, no life, losers. How much are you contributing to society, if you spend all your time voting. I couldn't believe I read some nimble minded woman wrote in huge letters I've voted 10,000 times. I read on in horror at the glory several woman took in voting over a hundred times!!!Ridiculing those who were upset for the ballot stuffing. Really, am I the only Ellen fan that thinks this is SICK???Ellen wouldn't even be in the top five if it weren't for those few people. Now if this time things gets out to bloggers which it probably will. That's a real nice negative light your putting Ellen in. She's had enough lately, don't you think??Now instead of Iggy gate, There will be "TIMEGATE" Thanks ladies!!What an embarrassing contribution you have made to the homosexual community!!

Posted by Lisa in Atlanta
Oh, and to Susan, I know how you voted on other covers by voting them at a lower average. Please, You are obviously not intelligent enough to insult ours. You vote Ellen at a high average, and vote say the trade towers at a lets say a 1! You pull that average down and raise Ellen's. God, you over did it moron!! Now, you've disgraced her and pissed people off. WHen Ellen is trying to get people to get along.

Posted by Jerry in Grand Rapids
RERRROEW!!EASY KITTIES!!!!!!!!!I LIKE THE CAT COVER MYSELF>

Posted by Lisa in Atlanta
Susan from Iowa, If ind it no coincidence that the woman that posted over 10,000 times is from Iowa as well. Perhaps moron isn't the word I should have used to describe you. In fact, I would like to apologize for that. You are not a moron, no ma'am, you are a liar.

Posted by K Mem in Falls Church
ELLEN DEGENERES - BEST EVER!!!

Posted by Kelly in Your City
I lost my daughter in tower 2. That cover is so powerful to me. I am not anti-gay. I just wish you all voting for Ellen would please take others into consideration. I am emailing Time to inform them of what's going on in this post and with voting. It's pretty obvious you keep voting and voting. I watched the numbers this morning, they grew way too fast. Why is it gay bashing when people don't agree with you? Someone should email Ellen and tell her how hateful and unthoughtful her fans are. I agree with the people that think it's just a few. However, I am 68 years old, and would expect something like this from children. I sincerely hope these aren't adults like has been noted.

Posted by Donna in Boise Idaho
Your comment

ellen

Posted by Susan Farmer in Tifton
Why not put them in a gallery where we can see more than one at a time-- like 10 of them, or maybe a whole tab's worth -- or *GASP* even thumbnails of all 85!!!! If I have to wait on the internet and look at them one at a time, I'm not doing it.

Posted by Sylvia Rhue in Washington, DC
Your comment Ellen Degeneres is the best!

Posted by Lynne S in San Diego
This is a more silent civil rights movement than the sixties, but equally important. Homosexuality has been around since the beginning of man, in all cultures, in all countries, and in all times. There are also homosexual birds and animals. It's normal within populations and no amount of religious condemnation will change it. Whether one likes it or not doesn't change reality. It exists. It's here to stay, and it's normal. Deal with it.

Posted by BDUB in LOUISVILLE, KY
WHAT ABOUT THE COVER FEATURING THE GREATEST HORSE OF ALL-TIME: SECRETARIAT HOW DO YOU MISS THAT ONE? WHAT A SHAME!

Posted by Kimberly B in San Francisco, CA
The Japan cover and entire issue from around 1983 was the best. I keep a copy in my files to revisit when I want to be inspired by elegant design at its finest.

Posted by BDUB in LOUISVILLE, KY
WHAT ABOUT THE COVER FEATURING THE GREATEST HORSE OF ALL-TIME: SECRETARIAT HOW DO YOU MISS THAT ONE? WHAT A SHAME!

Posted by Kimberly B in San Francisco, CA
The Japan cover and entire issue from around 1983 was the best. I keep a copy in my files to revisit when I want to be inspired by elegant design at its finest.

Posted by Kimberly B in San Francisco, CA
The Japan cover and entire issue from around 1983 was the best. I keep a copy in my files to revisit when I want to be inspired by elegant design at its finest.

Posted by Kimberly B in San Francisco, CA
The Japan cover and entire issue from around 1983 was the best. I keep a copy in my files to revisit when I want to be inspired by elegant design at its finest.

Posted by Kimberly B in San Francisco, CA
The Japan cover and entire issue from around 1983 was the best. I keep a copy in my files to revisit when I want to be inspired by elegant design at its finest.

Posted by Sanja in Vancouver
'Yep, I'm Gay' hands down best cover

Posted by Dave Rash in Everett, WA
Undoubtedly the best cover was C.S. Lewis, The Holy Spirit & the devil. Human devils made the cover a lot, but this is the genuine article! Also, there seems to be a paucity of the Holy Spirit in Time!

Posted by Gloria Skurzynski in Boise, Idaho
I clicked on your Time covers from the first one and all the way to 1952 before I saw a woman's face, unless you count the Dionne quintuplets at age 3. No wonder girls of my generation had so much trouble achieving success - in any field. It reinforces my awareness of the way things used to be. And there's still a long way to go.

Posted by Angela in Los Angeles, California
I voted for Ellen.

I voted for Ellen because, at eleven years old, I was watching all friends in middle school get crushes on boys in middle school while I sat around NOT GETTING IT, and it was powerful to learn that *gasp* women DO like other women! It's ok! Wow! It was a really big deal in my teenage years have SOME positive role model to look at, to see as a nice, normal, happy, funny woman who I was able to identify with. I didn't vote dozens of times - I voted once. However, I do sincerely hope Ellen wins.

Posted by Joe in san jose
It's obvious that 9/11 is the true winner. I hope the people at Time recognize what Ellen fans are doing. Ladies, why are you making this a hate thing. No one hates Ellen because they voted for another cover. I personally like her, but over 17,000 votes?

Posted by Jol in ELLEN-LAND
Ellen iS THE BEST WOMAN ..SHE GONNA WIN :) AND YALL HATERS CAN GO HOME

Posted by Kate in Rochester, MN
The best Time cover is the Ellen Degeneres Yep, I'm Gay issue Why? Well, it was because of her that I had the courage to come out myself, and this was a HUGE moment in my life as well as showing the country/world that it's ok to be gay.

Posted by a Maggie Collazo in Tampa Florida
Not much to say except that Ellen's is the very best one ever.

Posted by Karen Schgw in Your City
Your comment

Posted by Kim Lange in Chicago
Ellen Degeneres, "Yep, I'm Gay" is my favorite.

Posted by What in UK
Your comment

The reason why Ellen tops the polls is because of her obsessed fans from ellen-degeneres.com website..they vote and vote and vote. They are aware of the comments posted here, so don't be surprised if they cover tracks and delete the "The best TIME Covers Ellen Vote". They have done this with other polls regarding Ellen. Sad to say..they are a bunch of cheats.

See for your self, how many votes are for Ellen compared with the others?

TIME needs to look into this..Make this poll free from rigging.

Posted by xMARYx in London, England
I have to say the Ellen cover is my favourite. I actually have a copy of it that I bought off ebay several years ago (as I was only 13 when it came out - I did not read Time then). As a person who works in printed media, and literally reads hundreds of news articles a day, I think I understand the value of a good news story and the impact it can make on those it affects, and Ellen's cover on Time and the accompanying article certainly made an impact. At the time, it was a bold move for a mainstream publication and helped bring gay issues to a wider audience, and that's why it is my number 1.

Posted by Your Name in Your City
Your comment

Ellen DeGeneres crazy obesessed fans have voted multiple times, to make sure Ellen is number one. I don't think Ellen would like all the cheating that has gone on by those obessessed fans of her's. Shame on them, what an embarrassment.

I hope TIME removes Ellen's cover from the POLL due to cheating in this disgusting manner.

Posted by jlilest in North Carolina
Something to consider is that if Time cared about this survey they would have done a real scientific survey and gotten some sort of real results. They could have put a voting card in each magazine and let the readers vote. Instead of any of these options they put a for fun survey online with absolutely no limits on how many times you vote. They took no steps to limit voting. You can vote each time you come to the voting pages. I fail to see how voting more than once is cheating when there is no indication of any rules on voting. Why take this so seriously?

Posted by Sherry McLeod in North bay Ontario
Yep, I'm Gay is the best

Posted by Encarna Escamilla in Barcelona, Spain
The best is, YOU, 2006. But is not here.

Posted by Your Name in Your City
Your comment

The unofficial Ellen-DeGeneres.com website has got to be the worst fan website on the internet. After reading these comments and reading the Ellen-DeGeneres.com website, what they have done is dishonest. They will stop at nothing to make sure Ellen is number one in everything. If I were Ellen I would be disgusted in there behaviour.

I have emailed Time, It is a total shambles and a disgrace what has happened here. Time is a well respected magazine, I would be very surprised if any of these obesessed Ellen fans have read TIME. It seems to me they only read Ellen's name and zoomed in, like scatty hornets.

Posted by amy in henderson, nv
Ellen

Posted by Janet Robertson in Long Beach, CA
Your comment

Love the Ellen cover.

Posted by Kelly in Hamilton
"Yep, I'm gay" is the best cover. It's not cheating that her fans want her to win. She has many loyal fans, some gay some straight, that believe that in that era it was hands down the best cover story. By her being honest with herself and the world, she made the way society looks at the homosexual lifestyle different, and because of her thousands of people have been able to be honest with themselves and be open to their family and friends instead of hiding in the closet. There is no rules, therefor you can vote as many times as you want.

Posted by Simon W in Jersey CIty, NJ
After accumulated years of evidence and arrogant admissions by Bush himself that Bush only listened to those who agreed with him, you still chose to publish this on December 11 2006

"The Iraq Study Group says it;s time for an exit strategy. Why Bush will listen" by MIchael Duffy.

It was schockingly stupid back then, and it's just as egrious today.

Posted by Your Name in Your City
So what really happened? Did Ellen mention the contest on her show? Because 18,711 people voted for that cover and the next tally for the 9/11 cover was 4,151. If that's the case, kind of makes the whole exercise pointless. Yes she's funny.Yes she's gay. So what? It hardly qualifies as best cover of all time.

Posted by le roux sophie in paris france
My favorite TIME cover was the one with ELLEN DE GEneRES Thank s to make this posible. It was a great time for lot of people, even across the Atlantic.

Posted by Donna Skelcy in Novi, Michigan
Yep, it's Ellen who had the best cover.

Posted by Alana Roa in Barranquilla, Colombia
I like the cover where Ellen Degeneres sais: Yep, I am gay.

Posted by Alana Roa in Barranquilla, Colombia
I like the cover where Ellen Degeneres sais: Yep, I am gay.

Posted by citlali in llanes
i vote for Ellen Degeneres

Posted by nicolas in concordia entre rios argentina
i like ellen degeneres couver

Posted by Chris in Gilbert, Arizona
Who's been on the cover of Time the most?

Posted by Leo Goldsmith in Mississauga. Ontario Canada
I read the article in the magazine and loved it. I think the best cover is of the Berlin wall comng down. the article on the the Pope in the 85th issue is superb

Posted by josllyn in Your City
why dont you have the unaltered version of O.J Simpsons mug shot on the interent sight. u r horrible people. da t deserved to get fined. grr...nah im just kidding. Im jus madd cuz i needed the new one for teachin a class

Posted by your moms house in new york
pooka was here