Of cynics and the world-weary.

• Author: Douglas, Susan
• Position: Political pundits

Are you as depressed and fed up as I am? No need to feel alone. According to poll after poll, when it comes to politics, we're all in an incredibly foul mood and will make our dyspepsia known come election day. And the antacid we will choose, according to the experts, will be to vote in a Congress dominated by the likes of Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, and Jesse Helms, all of whom will surely make us a lot less crabby and cynical. Even invading a small, benighted Caribbean country--a tried-and-true picker-upper for most Presidents with a popularity problem--hasn't worked for the goat in this narrative, Bill Clinton.

According to the pundits, the major source of our psychic indigestion is Clinton, and they've pronounced his Presidency virtually over. His first main failing is that he has governed too much from "the left." (Sure. As if the Left's most fervent desires have been to give insurance companies even more control than they already have over health care, extend the Federal death penalty to three dozen new offenses, and demonize welfare mothers.) His second main failing--now a media mantra--is that he's been, to quote Maureen Dowd of The New York Times, "wimpy, soft, weak, indecisive."

Writers and readers of The Progressive continue to debate the consequences of "Clinton bashing," and to argue over whether he has policy problems or press problems. I'd like to suggest that we consider how--policy problems and all--the press and the pundits have helped bring us to this pass: Where he is a failure, we are beside ourselves with cynicism and frustration, and Bob Dole is allegedly our next best hope.

There is a double standard in covering Democratic and Republican Presidents, especially in foreign affairs; that is not in doubt. With the coverage of Haiti, we can see how badly Clinton has been hosed. But we'd better pay attention--whatever we think of the Haiti situation--to what he's gotten hosed for. It goes without saying that Clinton's evolving policy and the negotiated settlement to remove Cedras from office are deeply flawed and can be criticized from both the right and the left. But Bush and Reagan were lionized for their ridiculous expolits in Grenada and Panama, while Clinton gets no credit, except from a few liberal pundits like Jack Germond and Eleanor Clift, for going the extra mile and allowing Jimmy Carter to avert (as of this writing) a war in Haiti.

Instead, the Carter mission was predictably--and lazily--cast as another "reversal...