Can We Cut the Breathless Fawning Now?

Well, we've finally made it through Barack Obama's first 100 days.

I don't know how you feel about it, but I'm relieved to have it over with. It often seems like that's all I've been hearing about lately. Indeed, for about a month, the company for whom I do some freelance writing has been bombing my e–mail inbox trying to get me to write a — presumably — positive piece about the new administration's policies.

As if there was a shortage of such articles these days.

The catch was that I couldn't write about the economy.

Well, excuse me for not feeling overly optimistic lately, but I've been out of work for eight months. I understand that we need to allow sufficient time to see the upside of Obama's policies — and I understand the stimulus package was intended to do much more than create jobs — but I admit that I'm biased.

But then, just a few minutes ago, I received another e–mail from the online company asking me if I would write an article expressing how I was "starting to see the light at the end of the proverbial tunnel."

They wanted details — "How exactly are you seeing recovery in your own life? Is it your 401(k)? Did you find more work? Did you find work, period? Are you increasing your consumer spending? What about home improvements? Any major purchases?"

Just one problem. I'm not seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. What was I supposed to write? "Well, I managed to find enough job openings that I'm qualified for to make the minimum number of applications to receive my unemployment benefits for the week ..."

It's an employers' market out there these days. Too many people trying to get the same job. For job seekers, it's hard to feel optimistic when this country loses more than half a million jobs each month. Things can't be getting better if more people are competing for the same number of jobs, right?

Is there any evidence of jobs being created, thanks to the stimulus package? Not theories. Actual figures. Doesn't have to be much. Just something to pin our hopes on.

This is a frustrating time for me, and one of the things I find most frustrating is something like the spectacle of CNN urging its viewers to visit the CNN website and cast their votes on the Senate, the economy, the Treasury secretary, etc.

Even if you don't put much stock in polls, you'd have to be living under a rock not to know how the majority of people have been responding to similar questions. The results tended to echo the findings of other surveys — frankly, most of the responses came as no surprise. And some things never change. The online poll indicated that most voters gave their own senators a grade in the B–C range, leaning more toward the Cs — nothing too extreme in either direction.

Seems like Congress has been getting low marks from people as long as I've been alive. Doesn't this disdain for Congress — regardless of which party happens to hold the majority — seem like a real "dog bites man" story? When the man bites the dog — or, in this case, when the people like the job Congress is doing — then you'll have a story.

This poll also produced some conflicting findings. The administration's handling of the economy got pretty high ratings, but the Treasury secretary got a mediocre grade. Is that some sort of commentary on the fact that so many of Treasury's positions remain unfilled? Or is it strictly a commentary on Tim Geithner himself?

Perhaps the most frustrating part of living in Obama's America is how fawning his supporters are. How unwilling many of them seem to be to listen to anything even remotely critical of "Mr. Cool," as one of his adoring acolytes, Susan Estrich, calls him.

Estrich, as you may know, was the campaign manager for Michael Dukakis' presidential campaign in 1988. That's the same Michael Dukakis who thought he would look presidential riding around in a tank — but managed to come off looking anything but presidential. That image has become so notorious that today the phrase "Dukakis in a tank" conjures up an image of the worst possible public relations disaster.

I don't know if Estrich had anything to do with that particular event. If she did, she is the last person who needs to be lecturing the rest of us about how to perceive a president.

"Maybe the most impressive thing about this president," Estrich gushes, "is just how cool he is."

Yes, ma'am, that's what matters the most to me, and don't you know that millions of Americans feel the same way? Getting a job and being able to pay the bills and being able to maintain my independence isn't what matters to me. Nor is having my life back. What matters most to me is that the president is seen as cool.

Estrich is quick to clarify her point. "I mean cool in the grownup sense of being disciplined and projecting confidence."

"Cool" is one of those words that used to have some meaning. Now, it seems like a cliché, like saying that someone or something "rocks" (as I recall, Katie Couric used that phrase to describe American forces when they invaded Iraq in 2003). Or like saying that someone or something is "the bomb." It makes me wonder, exactly how did something destructive become synonymous with something good, except in a war context? (I used to make zucchini muffins for office potluck spreads when I was employed, and one of my co–workers once told me they were "the bomb." I could only assume that was a good thing.)

I'm not just talking about words, although that's all Estrich offers in defense of her president. I don't mean to downplay the importance of confidence, either, but it seems to me that confidence requires more than lip service. If we're being asked to accept something on faith alone, let's be honest about that, even though there will always be a portion of the population that will not be satisfied with appeals for faith.

Estrich doesn't seem to have an opinion on the details of Obama's policies. "I don't know whether Obama's budget is too big," she writes. "I don't know whether the CEO of GM was the problem. I don't know whether raising taxes on the rich will help or hurt the economy."

Funny, I expected more than that from someone who once ran the campaign for a presidential nominee. Does she have no opinion on the size of the budget or GM's CEO or tax policy?

At various times in the last 100 days, there have been different distractions. When one loses its juice, there is another one waiting to take its place. Last month, some of Obama's supporters criticized me by e–mail for writing that Obama should focus his attention on the economy instead of filling out his NCAA Tournament brackets. I was told that this was an indicator that Obama is "a regular guy." I addressed this in my blog, in case you'd like to go back and read it yourself.

Anyway, once the NCAA Tournament was behind us, a new distraction was needed. It came along in the form of formal missteps.

Of course, there are those who are far too willing to overlook and make excuses for the protocol mistakes made recently by the Obamas, and they shamelessly take the bait from Obama's critics.

One such breach of etiquette was quickly shrugged off by the Atlanta Journal–Constitution's Cynthia Tucker, a journalist who has written some solid columns in the past but seems hardly able to restrain herself from her self–appointed role of chief apologist.

"First lady Michelle Obama's easy charm is so infectious that she melted the famously stiff and formal queen of England," Tucker writes of the incident in which Mrs. Obama touched the queen. Her answer to critics? Well, we like her. "The first lady is a national icon, a mirror for our changing mores, a symbol of our aspirations for wives and mothers, a role model for gracious hostesses and socially conscious volunteers."

In other words, tradition be damned.

Hey, look, I know it's not important if Michelle Obama put her hand on Queen Elizabeth. And I know it wasn't important that Barack Obama bowed to the Saudi king. Just like it wasn't important what Hillary Clinton said about serving tea and cookies or Tammy Wynette and standing by your man.

And it really isn't important that most people don't give the Senate very high marks after 100 days. Even if I live to be 100 — and control of the Senate flips from one party to the other each election cycle — I don't expect glittering marks for Congress.

But it is important — for a whole bunch of reasons and to a whole bunch of people — to start seeing some improvements in the economy and the unemployment picture.