I was going to post something about the Clinton campaign planting question at her public appearances, apparently in an attempt to emulate the popular and successful strategies of FEMA, but then I changed my mind. Nobody is going to care if she does that. If someone were to conduct a poll, you would find a majority of people saying they cared, but their reactions -- or lack thereof -- speak for themselves. We see the same thing with the issue of "negative campaigning." If you ask people, they say they are against it and that they want someone to give them a positive message. But the results of negative campaigning and positive messages says otherwise. I would guess that if you polled people they would also say that they want someone honest in office, but if we look at the people we elect, we see that isn't true either. People want to be lied to and, it seems, if you manage to lie to them about doing something good for them, but then turn around and do something bad to them, they are more likely to vote for you. It seems that people are more interested in electing people who will punish others; they will vote for bills that will result in laws that will harm more people than not; they will vote for people who promise to be generous with other people's money, but aren't generous at all with their own. So my suspicion is that if the American people learn that Hillary Clinton was having people planted in her audience to give her softball questions, that will make it more likely she will be elected. While she's at it, why doesn't she promise all the things Hugo Chavez is promising his people -- that she will take care of us all if only we will hand over our land and our money and our entire government to her. That will get her elected for sure. Then we will get Michael Moore as Minister of Truth.