The 100 Days:

The press has been pushing the first-first-100-day-analysis of the Obama administration recently, although neither the White House nor the general public seems much interested. However, there is some value to the process.

Obama's poll numbers remain high even as the country, and the world for that matter, is at best adrift in a large stagnant pool with no destination in sight. The general perception is that Obama's leadership is strong. (See The New York Times.) At least Obama is not Ahab.

But the feeling seems to be that the president benefits from our perception that Obama is something more than simply not being George W. Bush. Regardless of what other differences might exist between the Democratic and Republican parties (or not exist, as many critics have complained since the Kennedy administration, which actually had most of the same goals as the Republican party, especially on military intervention and taxes), with few exceptions, the Republicans have generally favored having a weak follower of a president, while the Democrats have preferred a strong charismatic leader.

When the Republican party put forth Lincoln, now generally perceived as our greatest president, it wasn't because the party believed he was a strong leader. The strongest men in the party ended up in his cabinet. He was the compromise candidate that the party leadership believed could be pushed by men pulling his strings. As things turned out, the party leadership underestimated their man.

Some decades later, the Republicans again found themselves confronted by a strong young man who wished to claim a leadership role, and they made him their vice presidential candidate. Teddy Roosevelt became the next strong Republican president only as a result of McKinley's death. Later Roosevelt left the party and formed his own third party. Later Republican presidents, until Nixon, were all "do nothing" office holders.

Tricky Dick Nixon was the one exception to the strong man rule in the Republican philosophy, but he did fit the other requirement of the party—he was the least charismatic man in American national politics. The next time the Republicans managed to succeed in bringing a candidate to the White House they made a completely 180 degree turn, selecting a man who was all charisma and who never had an original idea enter his head—Ronald Reagan.

In short, the two parties philosophies seem to be on the one hand have a "leader" who is pushed out in front of the mob, who can then be steered in the direction that people behind the scenes who actually possess power want the country to go in, while on the other hand the Democrats want a leader who is strong enough to battle his way to the front and then pull the country in the direction it ought to be going. Provided he actually knows what direction that is. (Note: After one thousand days in office, it remains unclear whether Kennedy ever figured that out; and after more than five years, it was definitely clear that Johnson had not figured it out. Carter came to office sixteen years too early; his style would have worked best during the Clinton years; and Clinton came to office decades too late; had he entered the White House in the 1960s no one would have cared about his "zipper" issues.)

(If you've followed me this far, check out The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz on the press's fascination with anniveraries.)

Swine Flu Outbreak:

Wash your hands; cover your mouth and nose when coughing and sneezing; stop French kissing strangers!

I hate it when my mother-in-law talks about common sense; she's the very embodiment of a dizzy blonde even though she's never been blonde without the aid of a bottle. But in this case common sense seems the best protection against the coming pandimic.

A significant number of people have already died from the virus in Mexico, but no one seems to yet know how virulent the disease is, just how many people are seriously affected by it out of all those who are infected. So far, in the countries where it has shown up outside of Mexico, it hasn't seemed serious at all. The concern has to be for citizens of countries with large numbers of poor and uneducated people living in close proximity with one another and little knowledge of or easy access to good "common sense" hygene. (See The New York Times' story and The Washington Post story.)

Are the Bees Back?

Over the past couple of years, bees have been disappearing as has been well documented in the press, even 60 Minutes has addressed the topic. No one to date has found an answer to the problem, but along with the current heat wave, I've encountered a return of bees, at least bumble bees and just today yellow jackets.

Over the past two summers I rarely encountered either of these two pollinating creatures, both of which used to be so plentiful as to be considered pests, but now their reappearance is bringing as much joy to my yard as the new trees I planted last fall and the return of rabbits and squirrels and song birds. Perhaps if nature is optomistic about the Obama administration.