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.

The cost has been high for the President. Four months ago, some 56 percent told Gallup/USA Today that they approved of the way he was handling Afghanistan. By last week, the numbers had reversed: only 35 percent said they still approved while 55 percent disapproved. Americans have always preferred a commander in chief to sound a clear trumpet.

Moreover, as commentator Fred Barnes pointed out a few days ago, Obama’s oratorical magic was much more effective when he was a candidate offering hope than a president urging new policies. His speeches since January have generally inspired more confidence in him than in his prescriptions. Most recently, his health care address to Congress did shore up support for legislation within his own party but after a temporary bump in polls, public opinion continued to slide in the wrong direction.

So, the odds are stacked heavily against him Tuesday night in rallying the country behind the war he envisions. The left is apt to say that whatever he does is too much while the right will say that it is too little. He will have to convince people that what he is doing is just right – in effect, he needs a Goldilocks speech.

The Gallup/USA Today poll of last week suggested how tough that may be. Some 39 percent said bring the troops home; some 37 percent said send 40,000 additional troops; only 10 percent supported a middling option of sending less than 40,000 – the option that Obama will reportedly embrace.

Does it matter whether he can unite a strong majority behind him? Many military experts think it matters a lot. A central lesson of the Vietnam War is that a president must commit the country before he commits the troops. If support is fragile, it can easily melt away over time and nervous politicians may then pull the plug on soldiers who have risked life and limb.

The truth is that it is not President Obama who has the most at stake here Tuesday night – it is our U.S. troops who will live or die in Afghanistan.

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.

Kennedy was shaken but, fortunately, he didn’t go into denial. He went into action, treating the meeting as a wake-up call. In the months that followed, he became a much tougher, more assertive president, and a year later when a showdown came over Khrushchev sneaking missiles into Cuba, Kennedy was an outstanding leader – and he turned the tables on Khrushchev.

Why bring up that story now, as President Obama comes home from Asia? Because it has considerable relevance to his meetings in China with President Hu.

Obama went into those sessions like Kennedy: with great hope that his charm and appeal to reason – qualities so admired in the United States – would work well with Hu. By numerous accounts, that is not at all what happened: reports from correspondents on the scene are replete with statements that Hu stiffed the President, that he rejected arguments about Chinese human rights and currency behavior while scolding the U.S. for its trade policies, and that he stage-managed the visit so that Obama – unlike Clinton and Bush before him – was unable to reach a large Chinese audience through television.

To be fair, President Obama seemed to handle the situation better than Kennedy did: he wasn’t humiliated, he did secure some generalized agreements, and – so the White House believes – he laid the groundwork for a productive, long-term relationship. We shall see.

But it is equally clear that this was not at all the kind of summit that an American administration would want – and it does bear some ominous similarities to the Kennedy-Khrushchev talks in Vienna.

It would seem wise not only for President Obama but for all Americans to treat this as a wake-up call.

For the President, the challenge is whether he will start approaching international affairs with a greater measure of toughness, standing up more firmly and assertively for American interests. Yes, he must still be the man of reason and peace, but that can easily be read as a sign of weakness by others unless he balances it with the inner steel that is essential in international affairs. The most recent issue of Forbes identifies Obama and Hu as the two most powerful people on the planet – but it is Obama who is Number One, not Hu.

For the United States, this trip should also send a clear message that the balance of power is changing in the world.

Even though China is still a relatively weak country compared to the U.S., it is rising rapidly, and people around the globe are wondering if China represents the future – and the U.S. the past. We need to wake up, too, recognizing that we have to pull ourselves together to solve the challenges before us – living beyond our means for too long, building up too much debt, allowing China to become our biggest creditor, refusing to overcome our polarization, allowing our political discourse to degenerate so that it is hard to find sensible answers, and on and on.

Unless we do pull together as a great people, we will find that our whole country – not just our President – will be in for a very rough ride. Downhill.

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.

The same general story is emerging from the President’s efforts to address climate change with comprehensive legislation called “cap and trade.” The House of Representatives has passed such legislation and prospects are growing that the Senate may actually overcome strong resistance and pass a bill next year. Again, by most normal standards, that would be considered a milestone.

Yet experts on the environment know full well that the cap and trade bill has been so watered down in the House that it will fail to bring carbon emissions under control with anything like the urgency that scientists say is necessary.

The inability of the United States to pass bold legislation this year has already reduced hopes that a successor to the Kyoto Treaty can be negotiated in Copenhagen this December, when nations from around the world assemble for what has been seen as one of the most important environmental gatherings ever held. China and India will not come along with a new treaty unless they see the United States and Europe also taking dramatic steps – and even then, getting their assent will be difficult.

A similar argument can be made about financial regulation – that the need is great, that we may get some legislation from Congress (chances are brightening for consumer protection), but what emerges may be far less than what the times demand.

What we are seeing is that the challenges facing the United States have become so enormous and so urgent that even with legislative achievements that would once be considered breakthroughs, it looks like we will fall frustratingly short of what we must do to remain a great people.

The President’s team argues that compromise is inevitable in politics and that we must not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. Fair enough. If I were in the White House today, I might well be making the same arguments. But from an outside perspective – one not burdened by the agonizing efforts that the White House has made to get this far – it also seems we must be realistic with ourselves.

We must look reality squarely in the eye and recognize that the times demand that we not settle for climbing ordinary mountains; we must hoist ourselves up and climb extraordinary ones.

Are we asking enough of ourselves? Not yet, it appears.

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.

The question becomes whether opinion has become so settled that it may be too late for even an Obama to change people’s minds. After President Clinton went before a joint session in 1993 to promote his health care plan, public approval shot upward. But that was because the public was just being introduced to the President’s ideas. Later on, opinion soured and Clinton could never find a way to turn it around. Once public opinion has started to crystallize against a President, it is devilishly hard to change it – just ask George W. Bush about Iraq. We will have to wait and see how hardened opinion is today about health care.

Equally important, the President has appeared on prime time so often that he may not find as attentive an audience as he did in his early, golden months. Nor are television outlets likely to give the speech as much attention. This is Obama’s sixth prime time appearance in 8 months (two speeches, four press conferences), surpassing the records of all other presidents. Even Franklin Roosevelt gave only four fireside chats in his first eight months.

Second, the President must overcome tensions within his own Democratic party. Possibly, he will pick up a few Republican votes for reform in the next few days – everyone is now watching for the outcome of the Senate Finance Committee. But Democrats already know that to win, they cannot count on Republicans, but instead must achieve unity among themselves.

No one knows whether Obama can heal the obvious divisions within his party. Indeed, one of the surprises of this speech is that he is giving it so quickly after Congress returns from recess: most presidents would have spent time quietly working behind the scenes for a week or two, hammering out a deal within their own party, and then with a deal in hand, taken it to the public and sold it hard. That’s a more traditional way to success.

In choosing to speak before a joint session before he has a deal, Obama is running an obvious risk: that Democratic liberals from the House will emerge from the speech insisting they will pass a bill only if it has a public option and Democratic moderates in the Senate will insist they will pass a bill only if the public option is dropped. That will hardly seem like unity.

Third, the President must overcome a tension within the speech itself about his leadership. His AFL-CIO speech shows that his inclination now is to pick up a banner and rally his troops behind a battle cry, “Yes, we can! Yes, we will change health care!” To many of his liberal supporters, that kind of passionate leadership has been sorely missing from the White House in recent months.

But it is hard to give a stem-winder in favor of change, if at the same time, the President is quietly signaling, “But hey guys, we have to be realistic. If we can’t get what we want, let’s be prepared to give things away - starting with a public option.” That is not the stuff of brave, bold leadership of the kind that liberals are demanding.

How will he overcome these three challenges? None of us can be sure, and perhaps the White House is not yet fully sure, either. That’s why so much drama is now building around Wednesday night. Much is resting on the line and he is shooting from over 30 feet.

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.)

Deficits of that magnitude would be extraordinarily dangerous and irresponsible for the country. They would double the national debt, risk much higher inflation, saddle future taxpayers with annual interest payments of over $900 billion, make us even more reliant upon China as a creditor, and over time would weaken us as a great nation. Talk about trend lines that are unsustainable!

Health care reform was already in growing trouble before this report. These deficit projections clearly add another significant threat to its passage. The administration will now have to persuade Congress and a skeptical public that it would be financially prudent to embark upon an ambitious new entitlement program in the teeth of dangerously growing deficits.

As vital and as morally right as it is to extend health insurance to everyone in need, the public is also wise to worry about the costs of robust reform. People have long memories, and they will recall that when Medicare was passed in the mid-1960s during the LBJ years, the House Ways and Means Committee projected that Medicare would cost about $12 billion in 1990; in 1990, it reportedly cost some $107 billion.

When Washington enacted prescription drug reform in the George W. Bush years, the administration put a price tag on it of $400 billion over nine years; new estimates have projected a cost of $724 billion over nine years. More recently, Massachusetts has embraced a health reform plan that is widely hailed – and serves as a model for the national effort this year – but it, too, has far outstripped original cost estimates.

In view of all this, President Obama has a choice. He can push forward with health reform efforts, giving short shrift to these deficit concerns. If so – if he continues to insist that Washington is just too “wee-weed up” - he will find that some of his strongest allies will become more reluctant on a big health reform bill this year.

Or he can come to grips with these grim forecasts and present to the nation a credible, comprehensive plan for reining in long-term deficits before Congress acts on health reform. The second path demands more courage – and is also the one of real leadership.

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.

But the way these town halls have turned noisy, and sometimes ugly, has kept much of the media focus on Congress and on disruptions. It is not yet clear whether the President can regain control of the argument.

For now, the intensity of the opposition – coming on the heels of a growing wariness in national polls – is shifting the odds for what will eventually happen with reform. In this week’s issue of the National Journal, correspondents Brian Friel and Richard E. Cohen provide a valuable insight into possible endgames. They report that there are four possible outcomes:

(1) A major bipartisan reform bill is passed;
(2) A major Democratic reform bill is passed over nearly united Republican opposition;
(3) The Democrats cannot agree among themselves and pass Health Care Lite, a very watered down version of reform;
(4) Failure

Looking at the chances today, in the midst of all this brouhaha, one would have to say that the odds for outcomes one and two are going down. It is hard to see how a lot of Republicans will sign up for a bipartisan bill in the teeth of this opposition; similarly, it may be tougher for moderate Democrats, especially new members from Republican-leaning districts, to sign on to a Democratic-only bill. That means the odds are going up for outcomes three and, yes, four.

Does this mean that reform is dying? Not at all. It is still possible that if the protests continue at a high decibel level, more people in the middle will grow disgusted and rally to the President. And given his political and rhetorical talents, it is more than possible that Barack Obama himself can turn this around. But for the moment, the raucous clips coming out of Senator Specter’s session with his constituents along with other clips from other town halls - as offensive as they are to many (including me) - are also presenting a growing threat to reform.

President Obama has invited police Sgt. James Crowley and Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates for beer.

David Gergen | Bio
AC360° Contributor
CNN Senior Political Analyst

President Obama promised last week that he would convert the ugly confrontation between a black Harvard scholar and a white police officer into a “teachable moment” for the nation. As Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and Sgt. Jim Crowley come to the White House today for their “beer summit,” how can he succeed? How should the three men structure their conversation and how should they then talk to the country?

For counsel, I turned to an excellent family therapist who has had a long record of success in counseling couples (aka, my wife Anne), and she provided some sound answers. Each of the parties, she said, has to recognize up front that during a contentious incident that set them off, their minds were flooded with emotions that overcame their rational selves.

The key to achieving reconciliation is for each of them to talk through the incident as they saw it each step of the way, analyzing what they saw and said, and with their rational minds, trying to figure out how they might have handled it better. It is critical that the other player(s) not interrupt but let them tell their story fully. Hearing the other person respectfully allows one to see how their perspectives differed – and from that, begin to reframe the incident in ways that bring them closer together.

Once Gates, Crowley and the President have drawn lessons among themselves and begun the process of reconciliation (they may not get there right away), then they could be in a position to speak to a broader audience about what they learned – “the teachable moment”.

But there are two things that are also critical to remember: they have to talk quietly with each other first and find some common understandings before they talk to the public. Otherwise, the exercise will be phony. In addition, their conversation has to be among the three alone, without other family members or friends accompanying them to the White House. Otherwise, they could play to the crowd.

If all of it works, the nation could well benefit from a conversation that deepens our understanding of how racial and class conflicts arise and how we can get to higher ground. Sound advice – from a great source!

David Gergen | Bio
AC360° Contributor
CNN Senior Political Analyst

Heading toward a showdown on his top domestic priority - and possibly the linchpin to his presidency - Barack Obama carries two handicaps into his prime time press conference tonight.

First, he does not yet have a fully formed health care plan to "sell" to the country. Ordinarily, a president trying to persuade the public on a contentious issue has a firm plan to present in prime time. But the nature of the process in health care has meant that five different Congressional committees are working on ideas - and two of the most influential have not even reported yet on their recommendations.

As a result, the President is left to rail against the status quo - and he does this with great persuasiveness - but he is unable to bring his much respected oratorical power to bear on convincing people exactly what to do to fix things.

Second, the President is taking to the airwaves at a time when he no longer seems to have as big a welcome mat as in the past. Not only are his high poll numbers slipping a bit but so are his audience numbers. For his first prime time press conference in February, some 49.5 million people - a whopping number - tuned in. For his second, in March, 40.4 million watched. And in his third, in April, the total dropped to 28.8 million. Observers will closely watch the returns tonight.

He may be testing the outer limits of media presence. Tonight will mark his fifth major prime time appearance in his first six months. Even FDR, a legendary communicator, had only three fireside chats in the same time frame. (George W. Bush held four prime time press conferences in his whole eight years).

Obama's lieutenants will tell you he has a history of rising to the occasion and that already he has advanced health care reform farther than any of his Democratic predecessors. They are right on both arguments. But they know as well this will be one of the steepest, most important climbs of his young presidency.

David Gergen | Bio
AC360° Contributor
CNN Senior Political Analyst

Across America and much of the world, opinion of Barack Obama as president continues at levels rarely seen in recent decades. Sure, there has been sniping from the right and a little slippage in the polls, but mainstream opinion – both in the polls and the press – has generally been lavish in praise.

That is why it has been jarring to read two of the most influential and mainstream newspapers in the world over the past few days, both of them harshly critical.

In editorials, columns and news stories on Saturday and again this morning, the Financial Times castigates the President for passive leadership. Among the headlines: “President Obama needs to lead”; “Obama is choosing to be weak”; “Cap-and-trade mess”; and “Punch-drunk Obama needs middle way on Tehran”. Meanwhile, the Economist spoke out in its new issue with a full-page column entitled, “The senator-in-chief: Barack Obama is too deferential to his former colleagues on Capitol Hill”.

The essence of their argument about his domestic leadership is that the President has assigned out to Congress primary responsibility for writing major legislative bills and then has stood by passively as the bills have been so watered down or become so flawed that they fall far short of what is needed.

While celebrating that the House has just passed the first bill in its history that would put mandatory caps on carbon dioxide, for example, Europeans and others overseas worry that the U.S. is once again moving too timidly on greenhouse gases. Once-in-a-lifetime chances for reform are being squandered, in their view. Even liberal columnist E.J. Dionne echoes some of these concerns today in the Washington Post. While he prefers Obama’s approach to the Clintons’ on health care, he argues that Obama should now intervene more assertively as Congress wrestles with the reforms.

What should we make of these criticisms and questions from sources who have typically been friendly toward this President and the U.S.?

Two defenses of President Obama seem in order:

First, we should recognize that the politics of change are extraordinarily hard so that some degree of compromise is essential to get major reforms passed these days. The energy-climate bill was supposed to pass the House with ease but in the event, won by only seven votes. And it would have gone down to defeat had not Congressmen Henry Waxman and Ed Markey made some concessions to “Brown Democrats” from coal-reliant states. As it is, the bill now faces a long, tough, uphill fight in the Senate.

Second, President Obama is bringing an unusual leadership style to the Oval Office – leaving much more latitude to Congress than his predecessors – but at least he is breaking through the paralysis that has gripped Washington in recent years. The stimulus package, health care for more children, the energy-climate bill, the prospect of some form of health reform – all of this might have been impossible without Obama. It is worth remembering that when the Clintons tried a much more ambitious reform of health care in the 1990s, the bill never even made it out of committee in a Democratic Congress.

So, let us give the credit to President Obama that he richly deserves.

Yet, these articles appearing in the international press deserve consideration, too. The truth is that as historic as the energy-climate bill is, it does not adequately address the rapidly escalating threat of global warming. Alarm bells are now going off among scientists studying climate change as they see signs it is escalating much more rapidly than expected.

If you want to read a scary piece about where we may be heading, check out the profile of scientist Jim Hansen in the current issue of The New Yorker. For more than a quarter century, Hansen has had an excellent track record in his predictions – and he is now so worried that he thinks the energy-climate bill that just passed the House is useless. Scrap it and start over, he urges. Those who know a lot about health care worry that in a parallel fashion, Congress may pass a reform bill so flawed that it will be illusory as well.

What all this suggests is that the White House has been right to press for reform but it is equally important to get the reform right. The country has not had a full, vigorous debate on these big reforms like climate and health care. That is partly because the press, for a variety of reasons, has not given them the attention they deserve. But it is also because the White House, trying to pursue so many issues simultaneously, has not been to focus on any one of them very long. And let’s face it: the President himself has not tried to fight the Congress on key questions. If anything, he and his team are eager not to draw lines in the sand.

It is too early to judge whether the President’s leadership style will ultimately prove to be a major breakthrough for the country or whether it will bring changes that disappoint. One continues to have great hope for the President. But it is not too early to have a more vigorous debate about where these reforms are taking us. And for that, we should also welcome this questioning from our friends.

AC360°

Erica and Anderson have been reminiscing about their first concerts. Anderson couldn’t remember if his was Grandmaster Flash, the Furious Five or Elvis Costello. Erica admitted she saw Peter, Paul, and Mary with her dad.

That got all of us thinking about our own first concerts. What was yours?

We asked you to guess the first concerts of AC360° Contributors.

Here are some answers.

David Gergen: "That was a long time ago - maybe the late 50s - and I can't remember whether it was Perry Como or Bo Diddley - or whether I was wearing white shoes or a bomber jacket."

Tom Foreman: "My first real concert was a whopper: Elvis Presley when I was 16 years old." Read Tom Foreman's post on his experience here.

Jeffrey Toobin: "I went to a Chicago concert at Madison Square Garden. At the end of the concert, everyone lit matches and held them in the air. I thought this was evidence that this was the greatest concert ever. (I didn't realize this was done at every concert, all the time.)"

Gloria Borger: "I remember my fist concert. It was Livingston Taylor, and I went with my (now) husband while we were in college. Too bad I was really disappointed because I thought he was taking me to see James Taylor, his brother. It turned out to be fine, although the only song I can remember now is "Carolina Day," which I would swear is a James Taylor song. But it's not; I looked it up. The next concert event was much better: The Chambers Brothers. I recall the only song they played was "Time Has Come Today." In fact, I think the set isn't over yet!"

Lisa Bloom: Eagles, Hollywood, 1979, under a hazy pot cloud wafting over the amphitheater. Lighters (before cell phones) dotting the darkness. Peaceful, easy feeling, dude. And can you guess David Gergen’s? Post your guess here and we’ll tell you the answer tonight.

David Gergen | Bio
AC360° Contributor
CNN Senior Political Analyst

To watch the first African-American President from a broken family promote to the U.S. Supreme Court an Hispanic woman from a broken neighborhood was one of those moments that Americans will long savor. In his announcement today of his first nominee to the Court, President Obama quickly brought back memories of why the country elected him.

I was in the White House in 1981 when President Reagan nominated Sandra Day O’Connor as the first woman to join the Court, and I can remember greeting her in Chief of Staff Jim Baker’s office just before the announcement. It was Reagan’s first nomination, too – a highly symbolic occasion – and enormous pride flowed through every one of us present that day.

President Obama’s announcement stirred those same, overwhelming feelings. It is said that a president campaigns in poetry and governs in prose. Today was almost all poetry. It is likely to be remembered as one of the President’s finest hours.

From the start, it was obvious that at least on paper, Sonia Sotomayor possessed the best resume of all the candidates Obama was considering – her story of lifting herself by her bootstraps (with great help from her mom), her education at top universities, her years as a prosecutor and commercial attorney, her elevation to the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush on a recommendation from the revered Democrat Sen. Patrick Moynihan, her elevation to the Court of Appeals by President Bill Clinton, her long record of liberal-leaning but often pragmatic decisions. All that - and the fact that the Court has never had an Hispanic Justice and has had only two women - sang out for this nomination.

What remained to be seen was whether she would survive a thorough vetting and whether she would have the personal chemistry with the President. Clearly, the President decided that she passed both tests. Importantly, her name was also floated early enough that the press has already done its first vetting, too, and while it found some items worthy of debate, nothing we have seen so far would seem big enough to derail her confirmation.

Indeed, unless something new is discovered, it is hard to imagine that Republican Senators will stage a fierce fight against her. After all, the Senate first confirmed her to the federal bench by unanimous consent and then to the Court of Appeals by 67-29 (with 25 Republicans, including judicial heavyweight Orrin Hatch, in her favor). Conservative activists have come out sharply against her, and they sometimes “persuade” Republican Senators to follow their lead, but in this case, it seems unlikely.

Republican party-builders in the Senate know too well how heavy a price the GOP paid when it put a stick in the eye of Hispanics in California in 1994 over Proposition 187 on the state ballot. The party still hasn’t recovered there.

For Republicans to gang up on the first Hispanic nominee to the Court – one whose credentials are so strong – would invite an electoral disaster on the national level that would equal that in California. After all, Hispanics are rapidly becoming the biggest minority group in the country and hold a key to our political future. President George W. Bush, understanding that, worked hard to pull Hispanics into the GOP column in both of his presidential elections, but the battle over immigration was a clear setback to that effort.

Candidate Obama seized upon the moment, making a huge and successful effort to increase the Hispanic turnout and to bring them to his side. He not only succeeded in winning 67% of the Hispanic vote last year, but the outpouring of Hispanics was a primary factor in flipping 4 states from red to blue – Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Florida. If Obama can keep the Hispanics in his corner, he will have formidable advantages in 2012 for re-election and of equal importance, can begin to solidify a new Democratic majority.

Do Republicans Senators really want to run the risk of bringing down Ms. Sotomayor and possibly becoming a minority party for a generation? I doubt it. It seems far more likely that Republicans will grumble a lot, some of them will vote for her, and they will save their fire for the next nominee.

In the meantime, President Obama can bask – for at least a while – in the glow of an American Dream rekindled.

Visitors scan the names on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington.

Dave Schechter
CNN Senior National Editor

I never fail to be moved by the 58,000 names carved into the black granite and the mementos left at the base of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.

At night the statues of 19 troops on patrol and the faces looking out from the adjacent wall haunt the Korean War Veterans Memorial on the National Mall.

I'm less a fan of the design of the National World War II Memorial but you cannot deny the majesty of its position on the National Mall.

But on the National Mall there is no national memorial to the Americans who fought in World War I. The sacrifice of the American Expeditionary Force is owed a place of honor near memorials for wars that came later.

The World War I troops came to be known as "doughboys," a slang term that dated to the soldiers in the Mexican-American War of 1846. Explanations for its origin range from the chalky Mexican dust that gathered on the uniforms of American troops, the dough used to cook their rations or the clay used to clean uniforms and belts.

World War I began in 1914 but not until 1917 did the United States join the fight alongside the British, French and other nations against the armies of Germany and its allies. Several hundred thousand Americans, most who had barely traveled in their own country, boarded ships bound for Europe.

Their rallying cry was penned by the great American entertainer George M. Cohan. Perhaps you've heard the chorus:
Over there, Over there
Over there, Over there
Send the word, send the word,
Over There
That the Yanks are coming,
The Yanks are coming,
The drums rum tumming everywhere
So prepare,
Say a Prayer
Send the word,
Send the word to beware
We'll be over, we're coming over.
And we won't be back till it's over over there!

And when it was over "over there" the surviving Americans boarded ships for the return passage home, changed by the experience. On the lighter side were the lyrics of Sam Lewis and Joe Young:

How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm
After they've seen Paree'
How ya gonna keep 'em away from Broadway
Jazzin around and paintin' the town
How ya gonna keep 'em away from harm, that's a mystery
They'll never want to see a rake or plow
And who the deuce can parleyvous a cow?
How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm
After they've seen Paree'

But these Americans had experienced the horrors of modern warfare. There was brutal hand-to-hand combat by troops charging from trenches, aerial dogfights and bombs dropped from airplanes and poison gas (used by both sides) that choked lungs, killing tens of thousands and leaving hundreds of thousands of others with breathing problems that shortened lives. In 1918, the troop transport ships and the battlefields of Europe were struck by the same flu pandemic that killed tens of millions around the world. By the war's end, at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918, some 116,000 Americans were dead (among them 53,000 in battle) and 204,000 wounded.

Hidden by trees, crumbling and virtually ignored by tourists walking between the Lincoln Memorial and Washington Monument is a memorial to the World War I fallen who hailed from the District of Columbia itself. The National Park Service has allocated several million dollars to clean up this memorial to D.C.'s troops.

One idea to transform it into a national memorial is to create a trench scene along its side, with statues of soldiers, gas masks on their hip and bayonets fixed on their rifles, peering out as if awaiting the order to charge enemy lines. Plaques would provide information about World War I – among them, perhaps, the poem "In Flanders Fields," written during the war by Canadian Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, MD.

Interestingly, there is a site dedicated to the nation's World War I troops in . . . Kansas City, Missouri. The National World War One Museum contains an impressive collection.  The museum is housed in the Liberty Memorial, dedicated in 1926 and refurbished after years of neglect.

Now, don't get me wrong. I like Kansas City. I lived there for a couple of years. I was married there. It's a terrific city.

But a national memorial to the World War I troops should be alongside those for World War II, Korea and Vietnam; lest "the war to end all wars" be forgotten by those who come to pay homage.

The lone living American veteran of World War I is 108-year-old Frank Buckles, a Missouri boy who enlisted at 16. Buckles drove ambulances in England and France, ferrying the wounded to hospitals. Later he escorted prisoners-of-war back to Germany. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/diglib/vhp-stories/loc.natlib.afc2001001.01070/ Today a resident of West Virginia, Buckles attends parades and other events in his wheelchair, proudly wearing his military decorations.

"Don't let Frank Buckles die without a National World War I Memorial" is the name of a campaign to create a memorial on the Mall. Check it out on Facebook . The campaign is being led by David DeJonge, a portrait photographer from Grand Rapids, Mich., whose quest in recent years has been to photograph the dwindling number of veterans of "the war to end all wars," in the United States and across Europe.

In a statement issued in recent days, Buckles said: "As the last veteran of World War I, I feel a deep sense of responsibility to give proper recognition to all of the millions who fought in that war and are now gone. I intend to give all of my efforts in the time I have left to see that a national memorial to World War I joins the other war memorials on the National Mall."

On Capitol Hill, Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, has authored legislation to create a national World War I memorial on the Mall.  The support of armed forces veterans in the House and Senate, several with combat experience, is being sought.

It's understandable that Kansas City would want Liberty Memorial designated as the only national memorial. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Missouri, has sponsored legislation to this end.  Congress eventually will sort out the differences.

But Washington, D.C., is the nation's capital and the Mall is "America's front yard." The sacrifice of those "doughboys" of World War I troops is owed a national memorial on that ground.

Anderson talks with a panel about the national security speeches by former Vice President Cheney and President Obama.

Program Note: Tune in to hear more from David Gergen on the challenges facing President Obama tonight on an AC360° special, “Extreme Challenges: The Next 100 days.”

David Gergen | Bio
AC360° Contributor
CNN Senior Political Analyst

In our conversations for the Extreme Challenges special with Anderson Cooper, I was struck once again by both the enormity and complexity of the demands that President Obama will face in coming months. He started his presidency with the most daunting burden of any chief executive since Franklin Roosevelt, and if anything, it only seems to grow heavier.

As someone who has deep roots in presidencies of the past, I must say that I was among those who worried early on that he was taking on too much, too fast. My experience has been that a White House is able at best to handle one or two big issues, and when it suddenly has five or six balls in the air, it almost always drops one or two. Barack Obama has at least a half dozen flying above him - the economy, health care, global warming, Afpak, Iran, Iraq - the list goes on and on. So, I have been worried.

But one of the lessons I have also learned is that every fresh generation of leaders can teach a thing or two to older generations about how to get things done. And maybe, just maybe, we have a President who can do it all and do it with grace and style. (What did they say about Ginger Rogers: she showed that it was possible to dance as well as Fred Astaire and do it in heels and backwards?)

From the perspective of the current White House, one advantage is already apparent from the Obama approach. He is pressing forward on so many different fronts that it is hard for his opponents to focus their fire. One day he is going about the auto industry, the next about credit cards, the next about detainees. There are so many issues bubbling that the press can't sustain a single story line and it is hard for Republicans or even moderate Democrats to stir up much of a debate.

Take health care reform. When the Clintons proposed a major overhaul of the system, the insurers and small business folks were able to raise a heck of a ruckus within weeks after the White House put forward a proposal. Gradually public support eroded, and in a Democratic Congress, the health care reform package never even got out of committee in either the House or the Senate.

By contrast, the Obama team has so many initiatives floating and most of the bill writing has been assigned to Capitol Hill instead of the White House (where the press is mostly focused), so that a health care reform package is now winding its way through the Senate Finance Committee and will almost certainly make it out of committee and onto the floor in a matter of a few months. And there is no huge national debate! The public isn't aroused one way or the other by the big issues buried within reform because there isn't the kind of hot, mammoth debate we had in the country when the Clintons were pushing forward. As a result, it appears to me that health care reform has the best chance of passage under President Obama in more than half a century.

There is a legitimate question of whether we ought to be having a bigger debate about the bill shaping up on health care. Personally, I believe the country would be better served if we were to develop a national consensus through debate prior to passage - it is always healthier in a democracy to thrash big issues out before committing the nation to a new course of action. As a political matter, however, one has to say that the Obama approach is working better than many - including me - would have thought.

So, yes, the President does face Extreme Challenges in the coming months - challenges that are daunting by any standard - and we had an excellent series of conversations with Anderson. But it is also clear that he sees them as opportunities, and he is seizing upon them to advance his agenda.

Check out a preview of the AC360° Special "Extreme Challenges: the Next 100 Days." The full special airs this Thursday at 11p.m. ET.