This fucking tendency to want to find a narrative ("narrative," by the way, is reporter-speak for "cliché") has got to stop at some point. He's the same president today as he was a month ago. These miraculous changes don't occur overnight. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that you don't measure a presidency in inches, but these little victories and defeats are what keeps all these unworthy jackasses employed.
Here's a wild thought: How about we don't rate presidencies as a series of victories and defeats? How about our "narrative" has to do with whether or not the country is heading in the right direction? And why don't we try to take the long view every once in a while? Everything about an Obama presidency can't be defined by previous presidents. Let Bill Clinton's tired "comeback kid" trope molder in the 90s, where it belongs. Things are more complicated now. Don't we deserve a more nuanced media, too?
I understand that this rant is on the verge of becoming a cliché ("Wah, wah, the media sucks," says a tiny, insignificant arm of the media) but my point, and I'm going to give it the unnecessary bold treatment because I think it's just that important, is this: If editors at news departments spent as much time stamping out clichés as editors of literary fiction do, this world would be a measurably better place.