This really isn't a good question. In part this is just obvious ignorance, but underlying it is a basic, well, 'uncritical' approach to the subject. Since you have brought up the comparison of modernity (ie. 'thanks Obama') to the table I'm going to firstly address it in those terms.

If, in class or in a discussion with peers, would you ever ask 'how does the average 2000s blue-collar Westerner feel about their government?', of course you wouldn't. It's a completely vapid question. Here is where the ignorance enters the equation. Instead of asking about a 10 year period where we have a great deal of information, you are asking about a 1000 year period where for large swathes we have almost no information.

There is no 'average European peasant in the medieval era' the entire premiss fatally flawed. Defining who is a peasant is difficult enough (what about slaves, serfs, servants, artisans, renting city-dwellers, burghers, non-aristocratic landholders, etc.) let alone trying to average it out over 1000 years across an entire continent when societies and economic circumstances changed dramatically and at different rates.

If you have been looking for primary sources about the 'simple peasant' and instead turning up 'some noble ruler or king' then why do you think that is? It is because these records are largely written documents, and why would the 'average peasant', who is famously illiterate, leave such a record? Primary sources which give us insight into the life of the lower rungs of the socio-economic class are usually either court records or tax records. A close and critical reading can discern aspects of these individuals' lives but, on the whole, they give us only the barest insight into their lives - unlike the socio-economic elite who were the subject of chronicles, histories, and left a rich cultural legacy in the romances and chanson de geste which were copied and updated over centuries. Yet even these sources will emerge in societies where a documentary culture has emerged relatively early and survived through the providence of the historical gods. England is one such place, and the detailed legal records that survive from the late twelfth-century are an invaluable, if still understudied resource. Unfortunately, these medieval Latin records remain untranscribed, let alone translated, into modern editions. What about countries or regions where we don't have these enviable records? The simple fact is that if we don't have the sources we can't know what is going on in those societies and thus, when we don't have the information, we cannot make generalisations about 'the average European peasant'. We might be able, along the lines of your question, to make a stab at how the average English peasant felt about their king but here we run into another issue.

This issue, which I would not expect anyone who hasn't an interest in English history to know, is that when our best records about the 'average English peasant' survive is a period of massive anti-government rebellion. This is the fourteenth-century when the socio-economic circumstances led to a series of peasant rebellions most famously encapsulated by the Peasants' Revolt of 1381. Here is where numerous texts (most famously Piers Plowman) allow insight into the 'peasants' as a distinct class. This is, however, the penultimate century of the 'medieval era' (if we take 1452 or 1485 as the end of medieval history). It is also a heavy bias against attempting to reconstruct the 'average' peasants' opinion of the king (even if, admittedly, they did not blame the king directly but his 'evil' counselors).

At any rate, you need to read up more generally about medieval history before you think about pursuing a tricky and difficult subject such as the peasantry. If you want a list of resources I'm happy to draft a bibliography but you'll need to be much more precise that 'the medieval era' and, preferably, have a geographical region which you are interested in.