U.S. troops search for militants in the mountainous Taliban stronghold in Paktika Province in Afghanistan.

David Gergen | BIO
AC360° Contributor
CNN Senior Political Analyst

In his Afghanistan speech tonight, Barack Obama will face one of the toughest tests of any president in modern times.

Presidents usually seek public support for sending U.S. combat troops into action just after another country has attacked us or threatened our national interest – think FDR after Pearl Harbor, Harry Truman after the invasion of South Korea, John Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis, George H.W. Bush embarking on the Persian Gulf war, George W. Bush after 9/11 and even his decision to invade Iraq. In each case, vital interests seemed at stake, presidents acted decisively and Americans rallied ’round the flag.

But in this case, Obama is asking the public to support an escalation in a war that has already gone on so long that Americans have lost sight of why it is important and are intensely divided over whether we should spend more blood and treasure. The cold reality is that the U.S. government has done a horrible job persuading the American people that the Afghan war matters.

While the President deserves credit for engaging in serious deliberations before acting, his pause for reflection has also gone on so long – 94 days from the day of the McChrystal request to the day of his public response – that he has also sent a clear signal of inner doubts and uncertainty about next steps.

Keep reading

David Gergen | BIO
AC360° Contributor
CNN Senior Political Analyst

Barack Obama has recently been reading up on the presidency of John F. Kennedy. Coming home from China, he might well focus on Kennedy’s first summit overseas with the leader of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev. Indeed, we all could learn from that episode.

Like Obama, Kennedy came into office as an inspiring figure, an idealist who stirred hopes for the future and yet was inexperienced in the exercise of power. At the time, the Soviet Union was a rising nation that was threatening the global leadership of the United States.

In the fall of his first year in office, Kennedy went to Europe where he was welcomed grandly until he arrived in Vienna to sit down with Khrushchev. Kennedy, the idealist, thought that his charm and his appeals to reason would win over the Soviet leader. Instead, Khrushchev bullied him unmercifully and the men were unable to agree on anything of substance. Polite reasoning went nowhere.

According to Kennedy biographer Richard Reeves, Khruschev left the meeting telling associates, “He’s very young… not strong enough. Too intelligent and too weak.” Khrushchev concluded that he could push Kennedy around and started causing mischief from Berlin to Cuba.

Keep reading

Candy Crowley and David Gergen
CNN Senior Political Correspondents

David Gergen | BIO
AC360° Contributor
CNN Senior Political Analyst

President Obama and a Democratic Congress may be on the verge of passing various legislative initiatives that in ordinary times would likely be hailed as historic milestones. But will they be bold enough to meet the tests of the extraordinary times in which we live?

Consider the reform of health insurance that Congress is likely to pass before Christmas. By any normal measure, the President’s signature on such a bill would be an event of enormous significance. After all, seven other Presidents have tried to provide universal insurance coverage to the public; Barack Obama may well be the first to succeed. Some argue that it may be the most important social legislation since the Great Depression.

Yet experts who understand health care would argue that it will probably accomplish only half of what needs to be done. This is of concern since, as the saying goes, it doesn't work to leap a 20-foot chasm in two 10-foot jumps. It is worth remembering that the President himself has frequently declared that we face two huge challenges in health care: providing universal coverage AND bringing down the spiraling costs of care. Sadly, the bill that is shaping up will do precious little to “bend the curve” of health costs.

Massachusetts is often cited as a model of the health reform that Democrats are seeking this year: the law it passed a few years ago has indeed brought universal coverage (only 3 percent of the state’s population is no longer covered) but it has failed to bring down costs, and premiums in Massachusetts are the highest in the country.

Keep reading

Anderson Cooper | BIO
AC360° Anchor

Chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize committee Thorbjorn Jagland holds a picture of President Obama.

David Gergen | Bio
AC360° Contributor
CNN Senior Political Analyst

The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama is so unorthodox that it almost leaves one speechless. Even so, a few thoughts seem in order:

First, all Americans should join in celebrating this award to our president and congratulate him for the way he has inspired millions of citizens across the globe. Whatever one may think about Obama’s policies and politics, it is a special occasion when the Nobel Prize Committee recognizes the work and the dream of an American. We celebrate Americans who win prizes in medicine, science, and economics, and so too should we celebrate those who win for peace. It is churlish for some to attack the President and the Nobel Prize Committee today.

Second, it is clear that Barack Obama has not yet climbed the mountains that his predecessors had when they won their Peace Prizes. A Nobel was awarded to Martin Luther King, Jr. after the March on Washington, not before. Both of the two sitting presidents who won the Nobel Peace Prize previously, Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, were recognized after they had achieved substantial accomplishments. It is widely understood in the United States, even in the Obama White House, that his major accomplishments remain ahead, not behind. Just last weekend, Saturday Night Live stirred politicos with its parody of Obama, claiming he has accomplished nothing. That went too far, but it was suggestive of the country’s mood.

Third, a critical question will be how this award influences President Obama’s leadership in international affairs in the years ahead. His critics should recognize that it will strengthen his diplomatic hand, and that could be a distinct benefit for US foreign policy. Soft power, as we have learned, is often as potent as hard power in today’s world. By equal measures, the President’s supporters should recognize that there is a possible downside to this award. As much as we want a president who is a peacemaker, we also want someone who is tough enough to stand up for American interests in a dangerous world. As the President makes decisions on critical issues like Afghanistan, he may be tempted to play to some of the peacenik tendencies that we have sometimes seen in Western Europe and elsewhere. This would be wrong. He has a larger and more serious set of responsibilities in keeping America and the world safe. It is worth remembering that the American Eagle, which is embedded in the Presidential seal, holds a branch of peace in one talon but carries a fistful of arrows in the other.

David Gergen | Bio
AC360° Contributor
CNN Senior Political Analyst

In his fiery speech over Labor Day to the AFL-CIO, President Obama signaled that he intends to seize the offensive on health care this Wednesday night as he addresses a joint session of Congress. His supporters believe that it is none too soon and hope that his appearance will be a game-changer.

Obama has shown repeatedly in the past that when a speech really matters, he can sink a three-pointer from 30 feet and he knows it – “I’m LeBron, baby,” he told journalist David Mendell just before he delivered a boffo speech to the 2004 Democratic convention that catapulted him to fame.

Even so, Wednesday night’s health care speech may be one of the toughest he has faced, as he has to overcome at least three major challenges all at once.

First, he has to reverse the tide of public opinion that has turned against the Democrats’ general effort to overhaul health care. While most Americans agree that the system needs to be fixed, poll after poll shows that the country is at best divided on Obamacare as the answer – and some polls show greater numbers oppose than favor. Moreover, many of those who oppose do so passionately – a factor that heavily influences Members of Congress.

Keep reading

David Gergen | Bio
AC360° Contributor
CNN Senior Political Analyst

If you were sitting in the White House, it is entirely understandable that you would decide to unveil the surprise announcement of Ben Bernanke’s reappointment today: that may be the best and only way to divert attention from other economic news that is eye-popping.

The Bernanke appointment will be welcomed in financial circles, both here and overseas, because he is widely seen as the man who stopped us from going over a cliff. While some in Congress remain relentless critics of Bernanke, President Obama will generally win high marks for a reassuring move.

Strikingly, this is the third time in recent years that a president of one party has reappointed the head of the Federal Reserve first selected by a president of the other party: Ronald Reagan reappointed Paul Volcker, a Carter appointee; Bill Clinton reappointed Alan Greenspan, a Reagan appointee; and now Obama is reappointing a George W. Bush appointee. All of the choices have been seen as wise at the time.

Yet even the Bernanke story cannot fully deflect attention from the other economic story engulfing the administration today: its official announcement of new economic projections – in particular, its acknowledgment that deficits over the coming decade will be even higher than it said only three months ago. Now, the administration is predicting that instead of $7 trillion in new deficits, the country will rack up a staggering $9 trillion in new deficits for the 2010-2019 period. (The Congressional Budget Office has published its own numbers today that are largely parallel.)

Keep reading

Sen. Arlen Specter, left, answers questions Tuesday during a forum in Lebanon, Pennsylvania.

David Gergen | Bio
AC360° Contributor
CNN Senior Political Analyst

When a long-time voter favorite in Pennsylvania, Senator Arlen Specter, faces an hour of jeering and booing over health care reform, as he did today, the question arises: how will these raucous town halls affect the outcome in one of the central legislative battles of our time?

The answer does not appear to be encouraging for reformers. Granted, the way that opposition has been ginned up by outside forces does discount these outbursts some. The way that opponents are also disrupting these town halls, drowning out the capacity for civil discourse, is also stirring a backlash among many citizens on the sidelines.

But beneath the din it is also obvious that there is a growing bloc of voters on the right and a good many in the middle who are becoming passionately opposed to the overhaul of the health care system envisioned by liberal Democrats, especially in the House. It is the intensity of their feeling as much as the size of the crowd that may shape the voting on Capitol Hill in coming weeks.

The President’s White House team entered the August recess knowing that they had lost ground with the public during July. But they saw some evidence that opinion was stabilizing last week and with the Congress getting out of town, they thought that Obama would be able to recapture center stage and could hammer home his newly-crafted message about the consumer protections coming from reforms. If they could show opinion turning in their favor by early September, they would have a much better chance of securing major legislation.

Keep reading