At first, her aids advised her to construct a campaign deterring voters from him on account of his hostile position against women and minorities, his suspect character, his lack of interest in international affairs, and his propensity for lying. With the nearing of the date of the elections, it seems the Clinton campaign advisors found that advising Mrs. Clinton in this way did not give the desired result of undermining the camp of her opponent Donald Trump and of thwarting any chance of his route to the White House. They were convinced that echoing his maliciousness and defaming his character would win over the hearts and minds of the voters. But, as it was not likely to be enough for their candidate, they turned to a new strategy, more malicious and hostile, and decided to take political asylum in a more severe, fast-hitting and serious weapon, a weapon that aimed at provoking fear and dismay in the minds of Americans of the consequences of raising Trump to power in the White House.

The plan to incite fear of Trump, which can be called “Trump Phobia,” began with a powerful outburst under the slogan “the fear of a Trump Presidency” as a lucrative election paper. Emerging in the wake of this slogan a media campaign spread inside and outside of the United States, aimed at vilifying Trump, challenging (beyond doubt) his eligibility to take over responsibility for the nuclear button. This came on account of an undocumented declaration by Trump, in which he allegedly confided to Joe Scarborough, a presenter of the program Morning Joe on the American station MSNBC, saying, “If we have nuclear weapons, why don’t we use them.” As for the British journal The Economist supporting the Clinton campaign, it entitled one of its articles on Aug. 9, 2016, with the frank and direct headline “He Would Be a Dangerous President…Trump Against the World.” The journal, it seems, belongs to the Clinton campaign.

Naturally, this tactical election weapon that the Clinton campaign has deployed in the contest will be presented side-by-side with the weapons of malice and defamation. Her campaign team does not intend to replace one weapon with another; instead, it uses both with the same force and effectiveness. In this context, “a small bomb” has been thrown at the Trump camp. Hillary’s camp has accused Trump of establishing a working relationship with the former Ukrainian President Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych, whose disposition Washington allowed in cooperation with its European allies, and Clinton has gone as far as to cast doubts on his mental state. President Barack Obama supported her, saying that Trump is “inappropriate for presidential service.”

For his part, Trump himself will not refrain from “throwing bombs” here and there at the camp of his rival, as he did dramatically several days ago when he accused President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the establishment of the “Daesh” terrorist organization and leaked documents across social media revealing the details of Clinton’s secret relations with the “enemies of the United States.”

The conflict of the election campaign will escalate in the coming days, which will witness an increase in the heat and fever of the war of words and ideas between the two rival candidates, especially with the date of the election nearing. Perhaps one of the candidates will detonate a heavy caliber surprise, dealing their opponent a knockout blow.

Michael Moore, the famous director of the film “Fahrenheit 9/11,” who worked diligently in the campaign for Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders, has written a thrilling article, no less splendid than his documentary films. The article is an analysis built on sharp scientific and objective methods and tools of mathematical analysis. His shocking conclusion, supported by facts and evidence, is that Donald Trump will win with a 5 point lead on his rival Hillary Clinton. This is contrary to what he desires and to the desires of all those who have worked with all their capacity for the success of Clinton.