Political thoughts

Some thoughts I had during the past few weeks:

Questions the media should ask:

1. Given HRC won the Democratic states of NY, CA, OH, TX (the primary only). Why is the argument put forth by the Clinton campaign that they should head a ticket due to these victories not being challenged? Is the Clinton assumption that Democratic voters automatically vote Republican in these states?

2. Why are the results from the TX caucuses not complete a week after the voting?

3. Why is the Clinton campaign being given largely a buy on the Florida and Michigan claims of victory? With all the talk of redo, shouldn't Clinton be called on her claim following the Texas primary victory?

4. Hilary Clinton claims the experience as a First Lady - in addition to her eight years as a Senator - makes her adept at becoming a President. Does Nancy Reagan qualify? Does Laura Bush? Would Pat Nixon? Ladybird Johnson? Eleanor Roosevelt, surely.

5. When discussing Barack's "pledge" to accept public funds, he clearly said he would accept public funds "if his opponent does so". How is this an actual pledge? This is a conditional statement according to any logic. Why does the media seek to aid the Clinton or McCain campaign by creating a non-issue?

6. The current spate of false memoirs - could these not be written off as "reality lit" in the vein of "reality shows" which are false, scripted and sensationalized even though real people do take part in these? (Some may not apply.)