The Politico has published an article with a provocative title: 100 days: How Obama changed D.C. The article is relatively long -- occupying 5 web pages. But there is a major problem with the article: Despite the length and provocative title, I cannot find any evidence in the article which demonstrates that either DC has "changed" or that Obama has changed DC. Perhaps I am missing something because it is too early in the morning, and I have not had my daily caffeine fix. If you find some changes in the article, please let me know!
An important note on two of the authors of the article:
Jim Vandehei and John Harris co-authored the article along with Mike Allen. During the presidential campaign, Vandehi and Harris co-authored an article which concedes that the media reporting in the election was biased against John McCain and in favor of Obama. They, however, blamed McCain! See: 2 Politico.Com Reporters Concede Media Biased, Blame McCain
Update: Politico has published another article that takes a very cynical view of Obama's first 100 days: First 100 days more talk than action. The article, written by a longtime Republican strategist and blogger, is somewhat of a hatchet job. I suppose Politico cannot produce an article on this subject that strikes a good balance.
Question: Why all of the 100 days mania anyway? That is such an arbitrary time period -- a little over 3 months -- for assessing a presidency. It probably encourages presidents who love and are great at creating narratives to do a lot of "formal" things that they can include on a list of accomplishments -- even when substantively, the accomplishments are minimal.