I disagree with the need for this recognition to be "positive". It has a long history of going to the person/people who had the most influence that year, be it good, bad, or other, and anyone who is familiar with it knows that it's not a competition. When you look back at the list of recipients, it does a far better job of telling you about the events of that year than any strictly "positive" list would have done.
FYI, Rudy Guiliani (sp?) was recognized as man of the year in 2001--but it was a tight and hotly contested decision, as the internal editors nearly gave it to Osama bin Ladin.