I’m interested by this question in the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll:

If Hillary Clinton was elected president, some people say this would be a problem because it would mean at least twenty-four years of having a member of the Clinton family or the Bush family as president. Is this a serious consideration for you in voting for president, one of many considerations, not much of a consideration, or not a consideration for you at all?
Serious consideration …………………12
One of many considerations ………….13
Not much of a consideration ………….20
Not a consideration at all ……………..54
Not sure ………………………………..1

I’m among the 12% that thinks this is a “serious consideration”–so much so that this is one of the reasons I’ve been unexcited about the Clinton candidacy.
I don’t have anything against Ms. Clinton per se. She seems like a well-qualified candidate whose policy positions are largely in line with my own. Undoubtedly I would vote for her in the general election.
But as I envision a Clinton presidency, there’s several unappealing images that keep coming up. Among them:
(1) The media circus. Imagine the press free-for-all with Bill and Hillary back in the White House. I don’t have any confidence that the press corps could control themselves from doing trite and personal stories. It would be four years of cleavagesque chatter.
(2) Right wing attack machine. It’s true that rightists will assail any Democratic president. But I suspect their attacks would be even more ferocious against Ms. Clinton. She’s a divisive target, and they’ve got 15 years worth of history to dig up.
(3) Same old insiders. I don’t know who would run the machinery in a Clinton White House, but I’m sure there would be many of the same faces as Clinton I. Do we really want the same small group of people running the country? How about some diversity in perspective?
Bottom line: in a nation of 300 million, I just don’t understand why we’ve continued to turn to the same families to run the executive branch. There’s many capable leaders out there. We need fresh blood.

Surfing about I came across a unique blog, Paleo-Future: A look into the future that never was. It examines what people in the past thought the future would bring.
There’s a number of interesting entries to browse through. Among them is one with 1900-era postcards depicting what life would be like in 2000. Basically, the futurists who created these depictions took existing technology and gave it enhanced capabilities. Thus the trains, boats, airships, cameras, etcetera all resemble how they looked in 1900, but could do more things. Oh yes, and horse-drawn carriages can travel over water.
Two of the postcards are particularly pertinent today: (1) the police’s X-ray surveillance machine (a Department of Homeland Security forerunner) and (2) the card portraying “Summer Holidays” at the North Pole. Apparently someone was almost 100 years ahead of Al Gore.
Take a look.

The U.S. House has been working on an energy bill which, for the time being, does not strengthen automobile fuel economy standards. Apparently the House leadership ditched those provisions in an effort to keep oil/automobile-manufacturer friendly Democrats on board with the bill.
Meanwhile, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that we saw this headline earlier in the week:

“U.S. Automakers Market Share Lowest Ever”
The Detroit automakers’ share of the U.S. market dropped below 50 percent in July for the first time in history, according to an analyst who tracks industry numbers.

I suspect this trend will only worsen so long as (1) American auto manufacturers continue to hitch their financial stars to big, gas-guzzling SUV wagons while (2) oil prices continue to climb (these may get much worse in the next few years).
So Congress now faces a choice: it can (1) embrace the status quo, as American vehicle manufacturers continue their slow decline building inefficient vehicles, or it can (2) push the manufacturers to look forward and confront the coming energy shortage, and in the process hopefully remain competitive.
I hope it chooses (2).
UPDATE: Michael Vickerman discusses why Congress has failed to adopt sound energy policy.