When Nothing Goes Right: Clinton Fights Off Critics : Politics: When you’re hot, you’re hot, but when you’re not, watch out! The press smells blood, but Clinton refuses to go down for the count.

In politics, there is no reality, only perception. When you’re up, your mistakes are forgiven, ignored or put in context; when you’re down, they’re carved in stone, in letters 40 feet high.

The last few weeks have been difficult for the Clinton Administration. Everything they do is wrong--or at least that’s the way it comes across. Mistakes have been made, to be sure, but the larger problem for Bill Clinton is that he is perceived to be down, a perception driven by the vicious cycle of pundits and polls.

Ever since the defeat of the President’s economic stimulus package, the chattering classes in Washington have been wringing their hands about the incompetence of the Administration. And some of that is bound to come through to the people outside the Beltway.

If, every time you turn on the television or pick up a newspaper, you are told in increasingly apocalyptic tones that your new President and his team are an unmitigated disaster--and that has been the tone of the coverage since the stimulus package’s defeat--soon enough, you’ll start believing it. If you’re repeatedly told that three months is long enough for the press to form conclusive judgments and give out grades, you will, too. If you’re told over and over that the insiders have lost confidence in the President, you’ll start to lose confidence as well.

What opinion-mongers say shapes the way the Administration is covered by working reporters on a daily basis. When things are perceived to be going well, everything you do is interpreted as a sign of genius. When you’re rolling the other way, everything becomes a symptom of your failings.

Today, every compromise is a sign of weakness, not a smart political move to build consensus. The youthful energy of the Clinton team--which only weeks ago was seen as a symbol of new ideas and change--is today mocked as evidence of callow inexperience.

If the President were up, his policy on Bosnia might be considered courageous, for facing a problem Europe won’t, and prudent, for not jumping in too quickly. Instead, he’s being viewed as indecisive, for even considering action after earlier endorsing George Bush’s passive approach, and weak, for not lining up the reluctant Europeans.

Similarly, if the context were different and the press so inclined, the President’s decision to hit the campaign trail last week might have been portrayed as a savvy effort to talk directly to the people and sell them his economic program. Instead, the press game on Monday was to count the number of topics Clinton mentioned in his speech, to prove he was still lacking focus. On Wednesday, his speech was “rambling,” not comprehensive, and his proposal of a tax trust fund was described as a “gimmick,” not a solution.

Certainly, the Administration bears some responsibility for its current predicament. Setting up the 100-day test was a mistake: Most presidents since Franklin D. Roosevelt haven’t been able to accomplish much in the first 100 days, and there was no reason to invite disapproval if Clinton fared no better than they did.

Clinton should also have done a far better job in framing the stimulus package and pushing it through the Senate. Leon E. Panetta, the President’s budget chief, hardly helped matters along with his public prediction that the President’s legislative package was largely dead in the water. And all the blind quotes from supposed White House insiders about how different Little Rock is from Washington make it easy to forget that Clinton, as head of the Democratic Leadership Conference and the Governors’ Assn., has spent a great deal of time doing politics in Washington over the last decade.

In an ideal world, the failings of the first three months would serve as important lessons for the Administration to use in the more important battles ahead. But this is not an ideal world. This is a world of instant judgments and instant recriminations. It is a world where politics always gets more coverage than issues; where defeats make better stories than successes, and where the hotter the criticism, the more likely the critic is to get those 17 seconds on the evening news.

Criticizing the President and the Administration is a fundamental aspect of our democracy, and a good sport to boot. But in going so far so fast, we have put ourselves on a path that leads straight to continued paralysis. If the people lose confidence in their President, he loses his power to get things done. Few in Congress will take a risk to go along with an unpopular President--which means nothing significant will pass.

For the last four years, our national government has been in gridlock, unable to reach any kind of consensus on how to deal with recession or control the costs of health care or educate our children. It was reaction to that paralysis that led to Clinton’s election. If the Clinton solution doesn’t work--or if we don’t at least give it a chance--what happens to the country’s needs for the next 3 1/2 years? And where does a frustrated electorate turn next?

If there is anyone who wins from paralysis and frustration, it is not the Democrats or the Republicans--both of whom have had their chance--but Ross Perot or some other third force now slouching towards Washington. It is no wonder that Perot has been stepping up his criticism lately, and that the White House finds him so nettlesome.

The challenge for Clinton is not to return to the trail as a candidate, where he last confronted and defeated Perot. Nor is it, ultimately, to win back the affection of the fickle pundits. It is to win back the confidence of the people by being a good President. When you’re down, that’s no easy task.