Such are the woes of transferring into a new school as an honor student. Sixty-three days into the Obama Administration, it's now, it seems, report-card time for the new presidency. And to the savvy eyes of at least some graders, it seems, ol' 44 and company simply aren't living up to their full potential. The Washington Post's Jose Antonio Vargas arranges a panel of outside experts -- Craig "Craigslist" Newmark, Sunlight's Ellen Miller, the Next Right's Jon Henke, the Berkman Center's David Weinberger, and our own Andrew Rasiej -- to assess the current state of the WhiteHouse.gov site. (It might have been valuable to include at least one or two folks experienced in working inside a bureaucracy, past or present, in the mix -- given the unique set of challenges posed by attempting to work some innovative magic from inside government.) The panel's consensus on Obama's online hub? Welp, not so great. In the areas of transparency, accessibility, and citizen engagement, the site is only pulling in a gentleman's gentle-administration's middling C+. One panelist, though, offered some useful perspective on how to fairly judge what the White House has accomplished thus far. And it actually comes from the one Republican in the mix! "Henke gave the site a D for what it could be," writes Vargas, "and B for what it is."

And Politico's Josh Gerstein gives some similar sub-par grades to how transparent the White House has been thus far when it comes to matching rhetoric with policy actions. (Headline: "Murky report for W.H. transparency.") On releasing memos from the Bush White House's Office of Legal Counsel and exposing a supposed report on recidivism amongst Guantanamo detainees, Gerstein awards a B-. Recovery.gov also earns a B-. The White House's work on financial disclosures, Blackberry records, and cookies (the YouTube kind, not the oatmeal raisin kind) earns it a mere C+.