Shorter version: "I can't stand Obama."

"The survey was carried out on the Internet..."

I'd be interested in seeing exactly how that poll was administered. Internet polls often have self-selection skews.

Which makes me wonder -- are there statistically reliable internet polling mechanisms? Ones that (somehow) force a random sampling from a pool of (potentially skewed) data?

I don't think there is a way to unskew internet polls...google analytics might be working on it....then again China claims that all the internet is biased, that google is working for US interests..In some sense the internet is a self-selection skew...at best it only captures the wealthiest people in the world.
Can you really argue that a true international popularity test would select 2 americans?(maybe) China would disagree. China would also hardly think the Dalai Lama should be on the list either. Just another example of American bias on the internet. Truth be told I don't think polls like this demonstrate anything other than a positive outlook/bias on the figures involved.

In all honesty which international leaders would you put ahead of Obama or Hillary? Hamid Karzai...not likely. Nicolas Sarkozy? Stephen Harper? Appart from having less influence and less name recognition, americans even if they dislike Obama or Hillary would or I think should be hesitant to simply pick an international leader for such a vote.

In other words even with a heavy american bias (and perhaps especially with this, since americans are less likely to be able to name other world leaders...notice that saying Dalai Lama doesn't require knowing his name. FYI I looked it up and apparently the Dalai Lama is named Tensyn Gyatso.)

There is no necessary contradiction to vote Obama as a favorite world leader and yet have an unfavorable view of him as president, in fact that same can be said about giving him the nobel prize. Just from a sort of mass ignorance about who is eligible or deserving of such a reward a good default is awarding it to the leader of the nation which is most influencial in the world. This is just to say that Obama has the most proximate cause, that he is most influencial on world events.

In other words this argument or policy allows you to substitute particular knowledge of a person or facts with a general and broad rule. The president of the United States so long as the world doesn't emplode in nuclear war and so long as the US and world economy is growing and liberalizing(which it more or less is with a few hiccups) should more or less win international popularity contests the nobel prize included whether or not they occur via the internet or otherwise.(this is to say that maybe even the combined votes of academics and those on the Nobel Commitee wouldn't necessarily differ from the results of an internet poll because a factor that is always weighed and always weights in favor of the U.S. president as the enforcer of the American Law...when aggregated this factor alone might drown out all other considerations...and such a choice can never be unjustifiable)

In a a broad sense, and this is why Glenn Beck isn't leaving the country, the United States isn't less well run than other nations.