Talk is prone to get a little giddy over the coming days as Obamania hits town.

Enduring alliance, no closer friends, vital relationship, that sort of thing. Imagine the outbreak of euphoria had he actually made it those other times he promised to drop by, back when he was still wildly popular, before the chains of office really started to weigh.

Not that Barack Obama is unpopular, exactly. He still benefits by not being George W. Bush. But Obama suffers the affliction that seems familiar to us here in Australia and that can be found in other Western democracies too; a leader who surged onto the scene seemingly from nowhere, stirred so much hope, but could not live up to their own hype for a public impatient to see the promise delivered.

The difference, of course, is that three years later Obama remains in charge.

Despite the rock star enthusiasm that greeted his rise, polls in Australia show that people's regard for the US alliance has barely shifted since Obama took office, especially among the younger demographic. Perhaps we are witnessing the consequences of media overload and an obsession with politics by slogan; pithy messages that resonate but can appear hollow as time wears on. ''Change'' is hard, he is fond of reminding people.

Such slogans are also a feature of his foreign policy, where they can also appear thin. Back in 2009, Obama claimed the title of the ''first Pacific President'' as a mark of distinction from his predecessors. Not a pacifist, mind you, he was referring to the region. ''I am an American president who was born in Hawaii and lived in Indonesia as a boy,'' he told an audience in Japan, ''so the Pacific Rim has helped shape my view of the world.''

It's pretty clear Australians will also be treated to a heavy dose of this sauce, with added mention perhaps of his youthful travel to Sydney. As any speechwriter will tell you, a local anecdote is a disarming way for a guest to connect in a foreign country. It is also meant to signify a new US emphasis on engaging this region after a decade mired in the Middle East.

The theme was picked up by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week when she spoke of the coming ''Pacific century'' and the chance, as the US pulls troops out of costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for America to meet obligations and find opportunities in Asia. The language she chose pleased Australian officials especially, echoing almost word for word sentiments expressed by Kevin Rudd only a few months ago in a speech in San Francisco.

But is it real, this Pacific presidency? There is no doubting the pendulum of world power has swung to Asia, but not America's attention. Trumpeting new cross-Pacific free trade talks is more an acceptance that the last effort failed than a substantive shift.

Obama's time in office has been dominated by events on the other side of the world; the financial train wreck at home and in Europe, upheaval in the Arab world, rhetorical sparring with Israel, and suspicion over Iran's nuclear ambitions. He chose to send more troops to Afghanistan in 2009, hardly consistent with the goal of balancing towards Asia. Other than regular complaints about the value of China's currency, Asia has not had much of a look in - at least, not yet.

Clinton's claim on Friday that US foreign policy had reached a ''pivot point'' towards the Pacific seemed a line gauged to keep the strategic think-tanks humming with eager chatter, an aspiration rather than a true assessment of the demands on Washington's time and energy.

The US has always denied ambitions for global empire - now, with a badly dented economy at home, it simply cannot afford one. It will take more than a couple of fine speeches to persuade people with heavily vested interests in US attention elsewhere - whether in the Middle East or Europe - to surrender time to Asia. But with only a slow and uncertain economic recovery in America, something has to give for this to be a real change.

Julia Gillard recently gave one of these sweeping, global-vision-type speeches too. In September, the Prime Minister spoke of the coming ''Asian century''.

This marked a subtle shift, dropping an important word that Australia was always careful to use when speaking of change in the decades ahead. Previously, Australia talked of an ''Asia-Pacific'' century, a way of connecting its US ally to the dynamic change in the neighbourhood.

This might seem semantic, but language of this type is calibrated and deliberate. All this is a way of avoiding what the two countries are truly grappling with, that this could in fact become the ''China century'', with the old order on the wane.

Gillard has a slogan of her own to cope with any perception Australia could be caught between the US and a rising China, pointing to an ''ally in Washington and a friend in Beijing''. It's a cute line and a bet each way. If all this talk of Pacific presidency turns out to be empty words, Australia will be ready to pivot on its own.

Daniel Flitton is political correspondent for The Age.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/the-pacific-presidency-all-at-sea-20111114-1nfig.html