Now they've done it - again! British Prime Minister Gordon Brown appeared to support Barack Obama in an article that bore his name. The PM heaped praise on Obama and Democrats for "generating the ideas to help people through more difficult times."

The British Embassy in Washington rushed to tell the McCain-Palin campaign and news outlets that the true author of the article is a low level Labour Party official. The PM may not have read the article published in his name, they claim. But the harm is done, and in this case it is Obama who will suffer.

French publications carry news of a poll showing that 80 percent of the French want Obama. Only eight percent prefer McCain. A poll in Russia shows that Russians who will answer prefer Obama by better than four to one. A BBC survey of voters in 22 countries shows a wide preference for Obama. A German Marshall Fund study reports overwhelming support for Obama, country by country. As American voters absorb this, it helps the Republicans.

Europeans are viewed by many Americans as weak and indecisive in the face of aggression. So they would be expected to support the "weaker" U.S. candidate, right? Realistically, it is not so simple. But Brown's misstep is part of a long pattern, in both Europe and the United States, that widens the Atlantic. Certainly, President Bush has had a lot to do with that widening.

Obama peaking?

Support for Obama among U.S. voters seemed to crest shortly after he spoke in Berlin. Focus groups picked up the reaction immediately. Many voters who place importance on national security believed that the Germans flocked to cheer Obama because he is like them: Soft on fanatics and bullies. Again, the reality is not so simple. But the reality is no less troubling.

Americans were fascinated with the reaction of Europeans to Obama. But while most Americans were studying how Obama was performing, what he was saying and how he was being received, I was paying more attention to what the Europeans were saying – and what they were not saying. What the Europeans were not saying, in Berlin and in news accounts across Europe, is the most important thing to come from the Obama trip.

Europe flexed its muscles in the early 1990s and challenged the United States both politically and economically. The long recovery from two great wars was over. Strong democracies had replaced imperial governments. People had money in their pockets. Things were good and getting better.

A Eurocrat remarked proudly that "this is the hour of Europe." He seemed to be saying that in the post-Cold War world, Europeans would settle the coming conflicts touching Europe. Then came Bosnia and European paralysis set in. Europe could not muster the will or the way to intervene and save thousands of lives. Europe talked a good game, including telling the U.S. to stay out, but Europe could not act. NATO and the U.S. intervened. The Balkan conflicts were sorted out in a messy way that leaves still more sorting out to be done.

As a result, European influence in Washington declined at the same time that American influence in Europe waned. By the time George W. Bush became president, many Americans had already dismissed Europe as a noisy but toothless tiger. As far as those Americans were concerned, the sands of Europe's hour were slipping through the hourglass.

What's happening? Have two great centers of Democratic governments, Europe and the U.S., become estranged because one is unable to act while the other seems always ready to act, and often overreact?

Another chance at leadership

More grains of sand remain for Europe. After the Bosnian failure, Europe now will get another chance. In dealing with Europe, the Bush administration has done just about everything wrong. Bush will leave a huge void in trans-Atlantic trust and leadership. Europe could fill the void. But Europe gives no signs of being able to lead. Just when a new Obama or McCain administration will be looking everywhere for ideas, help and leadership, Europe again may be unready.

Never has "the hour of Europe" been so close. The new American president will have to listen - and welcome - Europe's constructive suggestions and ideas on virtually any issue the Europeans choose. Clearly, the new president will be hoping for cooperative ideas, but not the scolding criticisms-without-suggestions that have characterized Europe's diplomacy with the U.S. recently. Can Europe rise to the occasion?

A friend who is part of the Sarkozy government in France laughs when he says that Europeans find it too comfortable to criticize the U.S. Why give that up for the hard work of developing and advancing constructive ideas? When Americans hear and read such sentiments, they wonder: Are those words rooted in the attitudes noted by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld when he used the term "Old Europe?"

If this could be the hour of Europe - but the Europeans cannot seize the moment - expect some Americans to draw the wrong conclusions. Those Americans may assume (like Bush and Rumsfeld) that Europe is feckless.