From my new London Review of Books, here's an intriguing snippet from an article summarized on the cover as, "The Obama Letdown", written by a Yale professor and Huffington Post contributor, no less.

Long before he became president, there were signs in Barack Obama of a tendency to promise things easily and compromise often. He broke a campaign vow to filibuster a bill that immunised telecom outlets against prosecution for the assistance they gave to domestic spying. He kept his promise from October 2007 until July 2008, then voted for the compromise that spared the telecoms. As president, he has continued to support their amnesty. It was always clear that Obama, a moderate by temperament, would move to the middle once elected. But there was something odd about the quickness with which his website mounted a slogan to the effect that his administration would look to the future and not the past. We all do. Then again, we don't: the past is part of the present. Reduced to a practice, the slogan meant that Obama would rather not bring to light many illegal actions of the Bush administration. The value of conciliation outweighed the imperative of truth. He stood for "the things that unite us not divide us". An unpleasant writing of wrongs could be portrayed as retribution, and Obama would not allow such a misunderstanding to get in the way of his ecumenical goals.

Wouldn't it be something, and not necessarily a bad thing, if Obama the man and politician turned out to be as much "ordinary" as "extraordinary"? Or has he been a letdown, as the title suggested?

Now on to "Spot The Fake". One of the following personal ads is penned by me to fool you: the rest are genuine personals from LRB love-seekers. Who can find the ringer?

42 year old clinically depressed transvestite and father of two seeks jaded but intellectual supermodels to share misery, bills, and alcoholic blackouts. Costume desired but not essential. I am hugely attractive and overwhelmingly charismatic.

Carl at the Toyota dealership told me I should probably put an ad in somewhere. So here goes. M, 37.

Pulchritudinous Geordie F, 39, looking for love in all the right places, such as the grammar school where I teach. Why don't we do it in the bog?

If we fail to hit it off on our first date, you will at least appreciate the brutal efficiency with which I let you know. No hidden meanings with often terrifying, publishing F, 43, using Ming the Merciless rather than Anna Wintour as her benchmark of forthrightness.

I have two great talents. One is writing superb adverts like this; the other is cage-free chicken farming. If either of those appeal, please write. F, 32, Shropshire.

A graveyard in the dead of night. A spade. A curse. Then we turn the sods. Just a sneak peek into some of my dating habits, but we could start with dinner and a movie (something from the Dario Argento canon, perhaps?). Ghoulish M, 57.

Many people carry scars from previous relationships. Not me: mine come from Chinese buffets. Clumsy, argumentative dim sum enthusiast (M, 45). Not good with children or animals. Or anything else that isn't a fork.

In my bedroom, "tension" is a word from the past. Although "dermatitis" is very much of the moment. "Exfoliate" is probably the choice for tomorrow. Allergy-suffering idiot (M, 40).

There are 289 species of octopus. I can, and will, name them all during the act of love. M, 58.

When I was married, Saturday night was our date night. More often than not it became "complain about the macrobiotic diet the doctor has me on" night. Anything was better than "re-enact scenes from Lord Of The Flies" night. What I'd really like it to be is "play Scrabble then snuggle" night. Just so long as it doesn't eventually become "wear this leather gimp mask and don't let go of ther chains" night. Nervous M, 54, WLTM woman who isn't mental or prone to candidiasis.

It's too early. What's the difference between compromise and pragmatism, and how do we know what's what.

Remember that the job is a huge leap, a tremendous increase in responsibility for this guy. And he came in under the worst economic circumstance/crisis since early last century. And he's smart. And he's not owned (that we know of). So I'd give him a chance*.

So far, I like his instincts, I think the management side, bending people to his will (without breaking them), needs more experience and a lot of work.

* of course, this is the nub of it if you're the opposition .. why give him a chance to be successful? why not hamstring him in every possible way to prevent him from achieving even the smallest of successes (while convincing yourself that this is the test of a President, to achieve success even while the kitchen sink is being thrown at you, and if you can't pass that test you lose on merit), therefore increasing the chance of getting a Real American leader in there 3 short years from now

think the article writer does to some extent. He's clearly "let down", especially over Obama's action (inaction) on Iraq and Afghanistan, especially the latter. The writer's almost horrified that Obama would even consider a surge of sorts there too---in decrying the wisdom of such a move he even referring to General McChrystal as a "black ops specialist"!! Ouch. Is that true and well-known about the general and I've just missed it?

I agree it's premature to evaluate Obama's performance. But do you agree that he's first and foremost a compromiser-centrist by nature, or poll-aided coalition builder? Not that there's anything wrong with that per se, but that's a bitter pill for many of his most vocal supporters---AND detractors---last year. Or maybe the centrist posture is the best stalking horse for ideologically-driven change......

Ghoulish in the graveyard.

I refuse to discuss political and topical subjects in Spot The Fake contests because I lose anyway and the least distraction could definitely make it harder.

during campaign. As your snippet notes in the first sentence, there were lots of "tells" (with its FISA betrayal an excellent choice of example) that Obama in office would be an accommodating moderate, not anything remotely resembling the farleftsocialistcommunistmarxi​stManchuriancandidatetraitorbl​ahblahblah that the 25%ers STILL howl at the moon about, completely impervious to facts in evidence. In short, if you were attentive and realistic to begin with, and continue to be so (i.e., taking into account the multiple severe crises he's had to juggle since before Day 1), there's little reason to be (very) let down.

Which widespread realism is, of course, what exposes the "messiah-worshipping bot" stupidity still being mindlessly howled by ICP/teabaggers as such silly (unless just dishonest) idiocy.

As for the contest, you fooled me so badly last time that I'm still sulking. Maybe I'll get over it and come back to play later, though.

...anyone who had illusions of getting a functional western (European) style health care system going. (Half the price is pretty compelling, but it started off the table.) Or anyone naive enough to think that the imperialist streak would abate a little. (Neither the war nor the extralegal detention center have ended as promised, and presumably won't until the substitutes are well in place.) Or anyone who imagined a little more distance between the government authority and the half-dozen industrial (or rather, "industrial") sectors that dominate the economy to the perceived exclusion of the public good. Those people are probably let down, and were probably fooling themselves to start with (even if he did make a couple promises to those effects). People who liked him for the intangibles still seem okay with him, and they may be on to something: look what happened in Oslo, after all.

I vote Ming the Merciless as the fake. I'm a little alarmed that there's only one fake, and would take the ghoul, schoolteacher or transvestite as close seconds. I'm confused that Dim Sum guy is using a fork, but I think that's the sort of inconsistency you'd avoid, so I expect that one is authentic.

strong statements on

---public option or single-payer healthcare reform
---Withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan with all deliberate speed
---closing Guantanamo et al
---reducing unemployment and saving the economy
---ending discrimination against gays in the military and in marriage-license offices

pretty much the reason he beat out Senator Clinton and then McCain? Not that the aging RINO had much shot anyway, but you get my drift. None of the above promises have been met. Aside from healthcare, none of the above seem to be even on the policy front-burner. A couple aren't even on the stove. As I said above, it could be premature to hold Obama to his promises already, but are you really saying it was naive to believe he meant them?

As one of these was my (blush) advertisement.

Ok I take "bedroom tension" as the fabrictaed one.

public option or single-payer healthcare reform on the front burner, as you acknowledge

Withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan with all deliberate speed I'm content with his timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. What's a few months between bots friends? As for Afghanistan, I seem to recall he said that Afghanistan was the war we should have been fighting all along, and we should renew our post-Iraq attention there. In any event, this one is very much front burner, it seems to me. I'm a bit mystified that he's so mum about this issue right now, but clearly it's deliberate and I suspect that it has to do with the run-off election.

closing Guantanamo et al. It's Congress that has thrown a wrench into this one, no? And to steal a line from Wesley Posvar, there is no secret torturing going on... that we know of.

reducing unemployment and saving the economy To steal a line from Mike Tomlin, that's still in the oven. The President, of course, has direct control of this in the sense that I can directly push a rock uphill with a limp noodle.

ending discrimination against gays in the military and in marriage-license offices. Don't know where this stands, although I've heard secondhand that he is indeed proposing to allow gays to serve without concealing their sexual preferences. But, I mean, give the guy a break. He's only been in office 9 months and, you know, he spent a lot of that time earning the fricking Peace Prize ferpetesake.

I'm going to put my chips on "macrobiotic diet."

Why divvent wi dee it in the bog?

Schrod got me on that jag.

To your response---unable to find the material to continue my deviltry. Fortunately, I can hide behind My Dark Master. Fair enough---you're right, it's premature, it's realpolitik, etc. I was playing devil's advocate not for you or I, however, or what I might call mature, sober-minded Obama supporters generally, but for the Moveon.org crowd, the Kossites, the left-wing equivalents of the Tea Partiers, Town Hallers, and Beckites. Are they happy? Rhetorical question---they're not happy. Better question---are they contented for now and for the foreseeable future?

that thus far he appears to be a pragmatic opportunist, in a somewhat more positive sense of the latter word than is usually intended. He skews centrist when the support for more dramatic actions is limited, but when there is agreement or an opening, he will pursue more significant changes in direction.

The health-care plan, unfortunately, is an example - his approach has been that of a centrist. He put out a few general principles, and then left the details up to the congressional sausage-making machine. That's not the modus operandi of any kind of radical revolutionary, but rather the guy who is looking to get the community to agree on better times and methods of garbage pickup. Alas, this kind of tinkering at the edges is not really going to be sufficient to fix the healthcare mess - this is an instance where it would have been nice to have an FDR-style leader, to gradually bring Americans to a willingness to take action they would have considered untenable before.