Is "The Leader Of The Free World" still a meaningful way to refer to a US president?

[Stinky The Clown]

(Note, this thread is not about Obama. It is about the state of the world today.)

The phrase made sense when the world saw two massive totalitarian governments in opposition to the US and its clients. The Soviet Union is no more and China would seem to have been considerably moderated. True enough, still not a democracy, but not as much an enslaved nation as it once was.

So, back to the question: Is the phrase "The Leader Of The Free World" still a meaningful way to refer to a US president?

[Major Hogwash]

1. No.

Especially not over in China.

[Nye Bevan]

2. Yes.

At least until the European Union has a president with meaningful powers.

[Whisp]

3. it will be when a white one gets elected again.

:sarcasm:

[Whisp]

4. it will be when a white one gets elected again.

:sarcasm:

[polly7]

5. No.

We all have our own leaders, (even if our current one does suck).

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. No, we are a shell of an Empire

[Denninmi]

7. No.

Show me what kind of freedom we have in a corporate-fascist budding theocracy, and I might reconsider my answer.

[RC]

8. No. If for no other reason than the antics of the childish "Party of NO!"

When they start putting the people first, over power and money, then maybe. The United States is no longer the leader in a long list for things we used to be first in. 3rd world countries are ahead of us in some fairly important stuff. Infant mortality, being one of them

[eShirl]

9. yes, for the irony

[billlll]

10. Bought Elections not = democracy. Large campaign donation = bribe

Finland is free - no. 1 in press freedom survey.

(US is no. 20)

[WinkyDink]

11. Who else? The UK PM? Sarkozy? King Juan Carlos? Berlisconi? Etc.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. You missed my point. The notion is to the concept of "Free World"

It is a Cold War term.

[bemildred]

12. No on all counts.

I'd settle for somebody being leader of this country for a change.