The prospect of a White House incumbent with an inherent affinity for Israel’s adversaries and unshackled by considerations of reelection is one that must be considered with the utmost seriousness.

Well the issue of it being undivided… I said immediately after the speech that that word [“undivided”] was poorly chosen – Barack Obama on ABC, July 23, 2008

There should not be a shred of doubt by now… I have Israel’s back – Barack Obama to AIPAC, March 4, 2012

It [having Israel’s back] was not a military doctrine that we were laying out for any particular military action…. What it means is that, historically, we have always cooperated with Israel… just like we do with Great Britain, just like we do with Japan – Barack Obama, at the White House, March 4, 201

By most accounts – mine included – Barack Obama gave a sterling performance on Monday in the third debate with Mitt Romney. Attempts by Republican pundits, like the usually perceptive Charles Krauthammer, to declare a Romney victory, were largely unconvincing.

Only the most biased observer could deny that Obama’s performance was significantly superior to that of his rival.

Not about oratory skills…

But the upcoming US elections are not – or at least, should not be – about which of the two candidates has the superior rhetorical skills.

It is not merely a choice between rival candidates, or between competing political parties, vying for 48 months of power and prestige.

This time, the choice is far more profound and far-reaching. It is in essence a choice between two incompatible and divergent ideological envelopes, which demarcate essential core concepts that, in the most elemental manner, reflect opposing points of departure as to the conduct of life in America and relations with its allies.

It is a difference that impinges on how the national interest is defined and pursued – at home and abroad – and how national policy – both domestic and foreign – is formulated, not in terms of the operational details but as to the underlying philosophy and value sets.

It is this conceptual cleavage and a comprehension of its consequences, not the personal likability of the candidates or past party allegiances, that should determine voter-choice at the polls.

Freedom vs fairness…

Read more: Jan Morgan Media