Considering the supposed 'Democrats' the US and UK are the biggest supporters, funders, and armers of dictators like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, Israel, Colombia, Georgia, etc. and until it was all over - Egypt and Tunisia...isn't this whole juvenile exercise more than a little hypocritical and ridiculous.

Thank you FP. March Madness couldn't be better.

I'm just here for the Putin jokes.

Poor Dima.

where is Bahrain`s king in this comparison ;))

I thought waging aggressive wars and maintaining concentration camps were definite the characteristics of a dictator.

Naturally, I wouldn't after such a start, but I'm in for the fun.

Putin wins every match, duh. He uses his martial arts skills to break everyone's neck in the blink of an eye.

Obama has been on a rocky boat in these last 3 years, but he still manage an admirable job keeping himself afloat.

Harper, on the other hand, seems like the image of stability. But this rock statue has a fragile base: Harper is still leader of a minority government. His image abroad might remain strong, but local affairs are showing cracks. His government's current handling of ministries has been violently criticized, to the point that the Speaker of the House has to personally step in to bring Harper's Tories back in line. He has been criticized for his overhanded media censoring. His environmental roadmap has been the subject of ridicule across the world. His foreign policies have been openly protectionist of Canada's economic interests, with little regard to diplomatic impacts. Canada remains a minor country, and it seems more and more likely that it will be kicked out in the corner until it behaves on the international level, in the same cavalier manner it was kicked out of the U.N. Security Council.

Every sign point out to an early spring election in Harper's case. He is still the favorite to win this election by far, mostly because of a conflicted and ineffectual opposition. But he is still very unlikely to emerge triumphant with more than 40% of the popular vote.

Obama wins this round because, despite constant bumbling mistakes, he is genuinely working for america on the international stage. Harper on the other hand is actively painting himself into a corner.

The distinction is not always so clear--there are many shades of gray, as this cartoon can clearly illustrate.

http://www.harpweek.com/09Cartoon/BrowseByDateCartoon-Large.asp?Month=September&Date=22

For giving me a chance to fill out a new bracket. My NCAA predictions have not been very successful-- hope this goes better! My hypothetical money is on Manmohan Singh. Education, youth, geographical location, economic growth-- anyone with me??

Asked about two 'in contempt of parliament' rulings by the speaker earlier this week, Harper offered, "You win some, you lose some".

Failure in every way. Obama has so much more swagger.

Chávez and Putin each have some authoritarian tendencies but both of them have been democratically elected (repeatedly). Just because they are disagreeable people doesn't mean that they are dictators. When they start actually rigging elections, then they will be dictators. But for now, the people have spoken, and we should respect the result.

Funny how Calderon is on the democrat list and chavez is on the dictator list, when it is Calderon who is using the military on his own people.

Really, I am stunned! A lot of the people included on the dictators list were democratically elected, Hugh Chavez for example. You would think a site that called itself Foreign Policy would be able to differentiate between the two. It's concerning because it also misleads and misinforms your readers. Just because you (the author of this piece) might not agree with their policies doesn't make them any less democratic.

poor Ahmadinejad is not a dictator.He is just writting the dictate that somebody else is dictating to him.

Don't over analyze the characterization of democrats or dictators. This is simply a fun exercise that is intentionally poking fun at world governments.

With that said I think the judges should favor the leaders who push the envelope. For example, Merkel’s background in science and being a woman. This also applies to the “dictators” who push the envelope in other ways (ex: being particularly oppressive).

Leaders who find it difficult to keep control of their personal lives or their pants shouldn’t be supported. (Pushing the envelope on statutory rape shouldn’t count Berlusconi).

Game 1: Obama.
Game 2: Sarkozy. I would've given this to merkel, but Sarkozy has taken a leadership role in the North Korean conflict. Whilst I believe Merkel did the right thing in abstaining, this will hurt German relations with the west going forward.
Game 3: Berlusconi. Teflon don and all that jazz. Weathier, pulls better birds, owns AC Milan, in a less stressful company..who wouldn't want to be Italian PM.
Game 4: Gillard.
Game 5: Saleh. He doesn't have B2's flying over his head and tomohawks raining down on him.
Game 6: Abdullah. Has the west eating out of the palm of his hand.
Game 7: Mugabe. Still in power.
Game 8: Gbagbo
Game 9: Rousseff, poised to take brazil to new heights.
Game 10: De Kirchner..have you seen her? We need some eye candy in the wonk business.
Game 11: Singh. Superb balancing act between managing indian growth, us trading interests, russian military interests. An intelligent tiger.
ame 12: Rasmussen.
Game 13: Putin. Power personified.
Game 14: Shwe
Game 15: Jintao (the eventual winner of my bracket).
Game 16: Chavez
Game 17: Obama. Though sarkozy sabre-rattles, he needs obama's support to do anything of note.

........

Final four, obama, singh, abdullah, jintao. Leaders of the two most dynamic economies, one with the largest democracy, the leader of the free world, and the most bulletproof monarch whom the west kowtow's to.
Jintao beats abdullah for me due to abdullah's age.
Obama beats singh because at the end of the day, obama faces greater issues that shape actors around te world.
Jintao vs. obama......jintao wins. the chinese juggarnaut has too much momentum (though overheating propery markets are not desirable).

World leader showdown, outcome based on a combination of policy and lulz.

Game 1: Obama. Say what you will about his politics, but Barry's a spry dude and Harper just can't deliver the goods.
Game 2: Sarkozy. Winning a match takes energy and spunk, and Sarko has that in spades.
Game 3: Berlusconi. The man's a player, and I'm not just talking about basketball.
Game 4: Zuma. Gillard gives a strong performance, but Zuma roars ahead while she's still fighting through intra-party resistance.
Game 5: Gaddafi. The old man starts giving out halfway through, only to be saved by his 40 hot bodyguards.
Game 6: Ahmadinejad. He's made it pretty clear he'll go ten rounds with anyone, and the Saudi just can't keep up.
Game 7: Mugabe. The man has staying power, meanwhile Al-Bashir can't keep his own house in order.
Game 8: Gbagbo. He's got a rock-solid defense, and Mbasogo has grown soft playing with his huge piles of cash. Dough makes you doughy, yeah?
Game 9: Rousseff. Being an acutal leftist fighter means she knows how to knock some heads; Caleron relies too much on his federales for the heavy lifting.
Game 10: Santos. He calls in some Colombian gentlement to "persuade" Kirchner to his way of thinking. Besides, we've all seen what ultimately happens when Argentina gets into it with the UK...
Game 11: Myung-bak. Singh is just too old to keep up.
Game 12: Rasmussen. Ki-moon just can't match the horsepower.
Game 13: Putin. This one's pretty easy, he just charges his opponent for a no-holds-barred beatdown.
Game 14: Jong-il. Shwe was mysteriously kidnapped on his way to the matchup, never to be heard from again.
Game 15: Berdimuhamedov. Paranoia tends to give one an impenetrable defense, granting the Turkmeni a slow-but-sure attrition win.
Game 16: Chavez. Does anyone even know if the Castros are still alive? Fatboy wins a no-show.

Game 17: Sarkozy. He charges ahead where Obama dithers, zigs where his opponent zags and feints his way to victory.
Game 18: Berlusconi. It's a dirty, ugly fight but the Italian stallion squeaks it out in the end.
Game 19: Rousseff. Once again, Santos sends his associates but this time they get more than they bargained for.
Game 20: Myung-bak. Rasmussen gets off to a powerful start, only to peter out as he discovers all his tanks use Korean electronics.
Game 21: Ahmadinejad. Simple numbers game; the Shiite's 72 virgins beat Gaddafi's 40.
Game 22: Mugabe. Gbagbo is good, but he just doesn't have the benefit of three decades of experience.
Game 23: Putin. Lil' Kim sends his goons out again, but Bad Vlad catches them with a wicked chokehold before delivering a Bear Punch to the Korean dictator's face.
Game 24: Chavez. Both give it their best, but it comes down to a split decision with the refs siding the guy whose name they can actually spell.

Game 25: Berlusconi. The Frenchman gets off to a blistering start, only to break down in tears after Burlesque-oni reveals he shagged his hot wife last night.
Game 26: Myung-bak. The feisty Brazillian warrior goes down to a withering economic onslaught.
Game 27: Ahmadinejad. The stalwart African finally runs afoul of someone even better at posturing and showboating than him.
Game 28: Chavez. The Russian strongman's moves just bounce off his opponent's considerable bulk. Sometimes size does matter.

Game 29: Myung-bak. Exploits his opponent's weakness by revealing he's just cornered the world's Viagra supply.
Game 30: Chavez. The Iranian rants his way to the Final Four, only to discover that some people just aren't intimidated by it. Hugo wins an oily victory.

Game 31: And the grand champion is...LEE MYUNG-BAK! Chavez starts strong, leveraging his oil reserves to put him ahead. But the Korean counters with technology, hacking much of the big man's infrastructure into pudding. Chavez' lack of skilled labor puts him at a distinct disadvantage, forcing him to rely on brute strength and force of will. It's a close one, but the slayer from Seoul takes the prize. Good thing he didn't end up facing his nemesis across the border...

Thanks FP for running this. Notwithstanding my only average showing (got 4 of my guys/gal into the elite eight) it's a lot of fun and I'm learning a bit as well. Not that it matters for the game at this point but in the spirit of competitive sportsmanship I'm going to gripe a little about the Muammar al-Qaddafi vs. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ruling: I say Qaddafi has more heavy lifting on his immediate plate (actual airstrikes) than does Ahmadinejad. So, wish I'd realized to weight smoothness over busyness. Again, thanks and keep it going.

Okay Rousseff has a a nice run but Cinderellas die in the final four. I'm sorry i don't make the rules, that's just how it is. Plus she is there largely due to the "Obama bump". it has been good for her up till now but it cuts the other way when she is up against him. Lets not forget the economic bump either. the US is still the largest direct investor to the Brazilian economy.

Now, unless the headlines read tomorrow that Obama has decided to propose a bill that would cut agricultural subsidies as a result of his Brazilian tour - I think Obama has to take this one.

FP is a fully anti-Russian venture and this article further cements their status as the idiot's/simpleton's Foreign Affairs.

And P.S. China is not militarily more powerful than Russia, they still have a long way to go.

the challenge to his authority by Medvedev, and the seeming ease with which the rest of the media seemed to follow him. It is undeniable that Putin was forced to backtrack, and Medvedev as a challenge to Putin does seem to have gotten a breath of fresh air, as well as US Russia relations (from my own perspective).

That said Obama has arrived back home to find a bit of an insurrection himself in the halls of congress. People from both sides of the isle are criticizing him. That said he has recently managed to broker/help broker the transition of command of Libya ops to NATO, a point in his favor.

My prediction is an upset Obama win. Putin comes out strong but is shockingly derailed by Medvedev just as Obama pulls ahead for the win.

Thanks again FP - this has been interesting, doesn't even matter that I didn't do as well as expected. Only recommendation is that a rule be established that each year's winner is excluded from the next (1) year's competition (and sits off to the side of the bracket). There are several valid and different reasons for this suggestion. Great job!

An American site where a non-American could be a winner... yeah, I know, it's too futuristic even in 2011. You just had to make Obama the winner, who would "win the future" otherwise?
This piece is worthless.

A ridiculous outcome.

THIS IS THE BEST THING THAT HAS EVER EXISTED.

"You play defense like Saakashvili!"

I DIED. I AM DEAD. NEVER SHALL I LIVE AGAIN.

Dima pulling a Luke Skywalker on Putin is like something taken out of my dreams. I don't think I can accept reality anymore after this.

It is undeniable that Putin was forced to backtrack, and Medvedev as a challenge to Putin does seem to have gotten a breath of fresh air, as well as US Russia relations (from my own perspective).That said Obama has arrived back home to find a bit of an insurrection himself in the halls of congress. stavkove kancelariePeople from both sides of the isle are criticizing him. That said he has recently managed to broker/help broker the transition of command of Libya ops to NATO, a point in his favor.My prediction is an upset Obama win. Putin comes out strong but is shockingly derailed by Medvedev just as Obama pulls ahead for the win.Other than that, I can't decide between the two, Rousseff and Obama, because they're just too similar: two "leftists" who constantly disappoint their true supporters - the left, without which none of them could have been elected - by making major concessions to the financial market.Ask any expert (I'm not one, but have studied it, and most studies show Canadian prime ministers have the most power amongst Parliamentary Democracies). I say Harper wins over Obama stavkove kancelarie due to Prime Ministerial power that allow prime ministers to fast track democratic process and get policies complete. They can do such things through the Privy Council Office and the numerous patronage jobs the Prime Minister has a hold over. It has also been ridiculously easy for Prime Ministers to remain in power since the 1980's as records show. Opposition parties, as you have noted, are in shambles.With the system that U.S., from my understanding and certainly in relation to Canada, the President has a lot more hurtles to cross when it comes to opposition towards policies and decisions. Especially against the notoriously uncompromisable republicans, where as Democrats tend to crumble.

I want to watch this match, also I want to buy the videos of this match. Castro is the oldest dictator and want to see Obama fighting diplomatically against fidel.