Celebrity endorsements can be a highly coveted commodity in election sweepstakes. Scott Adams (shown) is a very successful cartoonist and social commentator. His droll and witty “Dilbert” comic strip is fabulously popular, appearing in thousands of newspapers worldwide. So, one might expect that Hillary Clinton would have been overjoyed to learn, this past weekend, that Adams had endorsed her presidential campaign — especially since some of his comic strips and blog entries seemed to indicate he was leaning more pro-Trump than pro-Clinton.
After a closer look, though, it must have been a blow to Team Hillary to learn that the Adams “endorsement” is more in line with the contemptuous “compliments” regularly dished up by Dilbert, Wally, Catbert, Dogbert, and the other comic strip characters that populate his dysfunctional office-cubicle world. In essence, the cartoonist said (maybe tongue in cheek — maybe not) that he was endorsing Clinton as a matter of self-preservation … to avoid being assassinated by her fanatical, violent, anti-Trump supporters.
{modulepos inner_text_ad}
In his June 5 blog entitled “My Endorsement for President of the United States,” Adams started off by saying: “I’ve decided to come off the sidelines and endorse a candidate for President of the United States.”
“I’ll start by reminding readers that my politics don’t align with any of the candidates,” he continued. “My interest in the race has been limited to Trump’s extraordinary persuasion skills.” But lately, he noted, Hillary has also gotten into the persuasion game, with great success. “This past week we saw Clinton pair the idea of President Trump with nuclear disaster, racism, Hitler, the Holocaust, and whatever else makes you tremble in fear.”
“That is good persuasion if you can pull it off,” said Adams, “because fear is a strong motivator.” But that persuasion comes with a social price, and no small one at that. “The only downside I can see to the new approach is that it is likely to trigger a race war in the United States,” he observes. “And I would be a top-ten assassination target in that scenario because once you define Trump as Hitler, you also give citizens moral permission to kill him. And obviously it would be okay to kill anyone who actively supports a genocidal dictator, including anyone who wrote about his persuasion skills in positive terms. (I’m called an ‘apologist’ on Twitter, or sometimes just Joseph Goebbels).”
“So I’ve decided to endorse Hillary Clinton for President, for my personal safety,” Adams concluded, noting: “Trump supporters don’t have any bad feelings about patriotic Americans such as myself, so I’ll be safe from that crowd.” “But Clinton supporters have convinced me,” says the cartoonist “— and here I am being 100% serious — that my safety is at risk if I am seen as supportive of Trump. So I’m taking the safe way out and endorsing Hillary Clinton for president.”
The violent “protester” thugs who have dogged Trump rallies, physically and verbally attacking Trump supporters, have no analog, in terms of threatening or attacking Clinton or Sanders supporters. The pro-Clinton/Sanders, anti-Trump media sock puppets, that have obsessed over a few Trump supporters who have punched or pushed obnoxious protesters, have been intentionally blind to the ongoing organized campaigns of violence aimed at peaceful Trump supporters. (A surprising and refreshing exception is this video news report from ABC News regarding the violent attacks on Trump supporters at the San Jose, Calif., Trump rally on June 2.) So, while calling Trump supporters “Nazis,” and screaming “Stop the Hate!,” the protesters engage in Nazi-like thuggery and spew hatred at those who are peacefully assembling to exercise their constitutionally protected rights. However, that’s not “news” to the establishment media mavens; that’s merely disenfranchised “minority” Americans acting out their justifiable frustrations against perpetrators of “white privilege” and bigotry.
Here Comes the Anti-Goldwater Mushroom Cloud Attack Ad
However, since not all the potential Trump supporters can be reached and frightened into silence by violent street confrontations, additional “outreaches” must be devised. Hence, a more economical, broad-scale fear campaign must be cranked up. What’s the solution? Hillary Clinton’s new persuasion campaign appears to be warming up for a replay of the original — and most infamous — political campaign attack ad: the Goldwater mushroom cloud television commercial.
In President Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1964 “Daisy” commercial, a beautiful, freckle-faced three-year-old girl innocently counts the petals on a daisy — before being incinerated in a nuclear cloud. The obvious message was that Republican challenger Senator Barry Goldwater would, by his alleged belligerence, lead us into a war of atomic annihilation. Team Hillary has, evidently, dusted off that 52-year-old LBJ playbook and decided to try it once again. This has been building for some time, with Clinton herself, as well as surrogates, warning that Trump is too unstable and “thin-skinned” to be entrusted with our nation’s nuclear codes.
Perhaps the most clear-cut clue that the mushroom cloud attack ad already is on the near horizon, is a comment by longtime Democrat Party operative John Burton. A hard-Left 1960s radical and former California congressman, Burton was recently quoted in the New York Times saying:
“The guy’s a maniac,” John Burton, the chairman of the California Democratic Party, said about Mr. Trump. Referring to a famous 1964 political message, he said, “You could run the old L.B.J. ad against Goldwater, with ‘Three, two, one,’ and a hydrogen bomb blows up with a little girl counting daisies.”
The atomic “Daisy” attack ad may not be far off.
Photo of Scott Adams: AP Images
Related articles:
Trump: Will He be Controlling or Controlled?
Newt Gingrich as VP Would Bring a Big “China Problem” to Team Trump
Newt Gingrich: Globalist “Conservative” as Trump VP?
Hillary Clinton Blasts Donald Trump’s Gun Policy as “Dangerous”
Donald Trump Engages in Twitter Exchange With Neoconservative Bill Kristol
(The New American never endorses candidates. Our purpose is to inform the electorate and enable them to draw their own conclusions.)
