Election 2008 Obama vs. McCain | Clinton vs. McCain | Latest 2008 Polls | Latest 2008 News

December 16, 2007

George Mitchell, Pete Hoekstra, Jane Harman, Roundtable

Fox News Sunday

CHRIS WALLACE, HOST: I'm Chris Wallace, and this is "Fox News Sunday."

Baseball strikes out. A tough new report condemns all-star players, their union and owners over the use of performance-enhancing drugs.

Can the national pastime regain the trust of its fans? We'll ask the author of the steroid study, former senator George Mitchell, in a "Fox News Sunday" exclusive.

Then, how far is too far when interrogating a terror suspect? We'll ask two key members of Congress on intelligence matters, Republican Pete Hoekstra and Democrat Jane Harman.

Plus, the final debates of '07. Who's best positioned for '08? We'll ask our Sunday regulars -- Brit Hume, Mara Liasson, Bill Kristol and Juan Williams.

And our Power Player of the Week, a business tycoon on a mission, all right now on "Fox News Sunday."

And good morning again from Fox News in Washington. We begin today with baseball and that explosive report about dozens of players, including some of the game's biggest stars, taking performance- enhancing drugs.

Joining us now from New York, the man who headed the investigation, former senator George Mitchell.

And, Senator, welcome back to "Fox News Sunday."

GEORGE MITCHELL, FORMER SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: Thanks for having me, Chris.

WALLACE: New York Yankee pitcher Andy Pettitte, one of the biggest names in your report, has now confirmed that he used human growth hormone.

He's apologized for it, but he's also said that it was two injections over the course of his entire career while he was trying to recover from an injury. Your reaction.

MITCHELL: Well, that's what we said in our report, of course, and his statement confirms the report. I don't know Andy Pettitte. I've never met or talked to him. But from all accounts I've heard, he's a fine man. He made a mistake. He's now acknowledged it.

In my report, I recommended that the commissioner forego discipline on those players named in the report or others who've used such substances in the past, and I hope that's what occurs here.

WALLACE: I want to get to the question of discipline in a couple of minutes. But do you think that the fact that Pettitte and the information that you had about him -- your source on Pettitte is also your source about superstar Roger Clemens.

Do you think that Pettitte's admission bolsters your report on Clemens?

MITCHELL: Well, that's a common-sense conclusion that I think many people will draw. We made every effort -- every effort -- to establish the truthfulness of the testimony and other information that we received.

I told every witness that I interviewed personally we wanted the truth, nothing but the truth, no exaggeration, don't minimize, just tell us what happened.

In the case of some of the witnesses, they were interviewed in the presence of federal law enforcement officials who informed them that they were obligated to tell the truth and that if they did not tell the truth, they would subject themselves to the possibility of further criminal jeopardy for making false statements.

In addition, in the case of the witness to whom you referred, he had previously been interviewed by law enforcement officials on several occasions, and they later informed us that what he told us was completely consistent with what he had said to them from the very beginning. His statements never varied at all.

So we tried as best we could to establish the truthfulness of what was said, and that's the situation that exists as to the report.

WALLACE: But, Senator, despite all those efforts, as you well know, your report has come under fire about some of the evidence that you have presented against other players.

Here's what Donald Fehr, the head of the players union, had to say. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD FEHR: Players are named. Their reputations have been adversely affected, probably forever, even if it turns out down the road that they should not have been.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Senator, in some cases, you have awfully strong evidence. You have checks. You have personal notes. You have mail receipts.

But in other cases, the evidence against the players you name is much weaker. Do you worry about lumping all of these 90 people together as cheaters? MITCHELL: Well, I offered to every player about whom allegations had been received the opportunity to meet with me, at which time I would tell them whatever information I had, show them any documents that we had, and give them an opportunity to respond to them with their lawyers so that they could have a full understanding of what the allegations are.

Almost without exception, all current players declined the invitation, refused to meet or to talk with me. So everyone who is named in the report in that regard knew that I had information, knew that the report was going to be published, and declined the invitation to meet with me.

WALLACE: But, Senator, let's take the case of one player that has gotten some attention, and that's Baltimore Orioles player second baseman Brian Roberts.

All you have on him is that a former teammate and confessed steroid user, a fellow named Larry Bigbie, told your panel -- and let's put it up - - in 2004, Roberts admitted to him he had injected himself once or twice with steroids in 2003. Until this admission, Bigbie had never suspected Roberts of using steroids.

Now, I know that...

MITCHELL: Right.

WALLACE: ... your report is not a legal proceeding.

MITCHELL: Right.

WALLACE: But isn't that hearsay and pretty slim evidence on which to blacken someone's reputation?

MITCHELL: It is not hearsay. The law is very clear that an admission against interest is not hearsay. It's an exception to the rule that prohibits hearsay evidence. The word has been much bandied about and much misused in the last few days.

The fact is the same thing that you're now saying about Brian Roberts was, of course, said about the statements about Andy Pettitte and about many others.

Let's wait and see what happens, Chris. We think that the statements made in the report are truthful. We did the very best we could to verify everything that we could and to get just truthful statements. And so we'll see what happens.

WALLACE: Let's talk about punishment. You urge Commissioner Selig -- and you mentioned this a amount ago -- not to discipline almost any of these players -- you have a little wiggle room in there -- for what they've done up till now.

But if you really want to send a message, and I think a lot of people feel this is the most important fallout, one hopes, of this report -- if you really want to send a message to hundreds of thousands, as you say in your report, of high school kids who are now using steroids, why not do what the Olympic sports have done to Olympic runner Marion Jones? Why not strip them of their medals? Why not take away their records?

MITCHELL: Well, first, I think it's not correct to make analogies to other persons, in other sports, under different rules, in other circumstances.

I was asked to do a report on baseball. That's what I did. The Olympics is a completely different situation which operates in a completely different circumstance.

Secondly, I believe the most important task facing baseball now is to look forward, to turn away from the past, and to come up with the best possible program to prevent or deter future use. And I think that can best be done by looking forward.

There are several reasons for my recommendation. Permit me to give them. First off, more than half the players in the report are no longer in baseball and therefore are not subject to discipline by the commissioner.

Secondly, all of the events in the report are distant in time. From two to nine years ago these events occurred. During that time period, the rules of baseball were changing constantly.

To this moment, there's a great deal of confusion about what was covered, what wasn't covered, what was legal, what wasn't illegal. Much of the reporting has been completely inaccurate in that respect. So I think you have to look to the future.

And finally, let me say baseball players are different from you and I in baseball talent. But in every other respect, they're just like us. They're human beings, and they all make mistakes. You make mistakes. I've made more than my share of my mistakes in life as I look back and think of all the times I said or did something wrong and wish I could have it back.

So I think you ought to get over this notion of retribution and punishment and say, "We're going to turn the page. We're going to look to the future." That's what we did in Northern Ireland, and that was a much more serious situation of life and death, people dying.

We turn the page. We put the past behind us. We look forward. We got a good result. I think the same thing can be true in baseball now.

WALLACE: Well, let's look at another aspect of this. Bud Selig has been the commissioner of baseball throughout this era of steroids.

If you really wanted to get a fresh page, turn the page, get a fresh start, why shouldn't he step down?

MITCHELL: Well, he's the one who had the courage to commission this independent investigation. It would be ironic if, because of my work, which was at his request, something should happen to him. Secondly, there's a lot of criticism of the commissioner's office and the players association, and my report makes very clear I am not an apologist for either one of them.

But let's be fair about this. Let's look at the whole record, not just the negative parts of it. In 2002, they agreed on a program to test randomly in a mandatory way for drugs.

That was a very important first step. The commissioner pushed hard for it. It took a lot of work on his part. The players association accepted it, even though for many years before that they had opposed any such form of testing.

In the five years since then, both sides have agreed to a number of changes to improve the program, many of them after my investigation started and we called to...

WALLACE: Well, but, Senator, let me...

MITCHELL: ... their attention such things.

WALLACE: ... ask you about one aspect of the testing program, because one of the things that Selig says now that he will do immediately and unilaterally, because he has the power to do it, is he will stop giving teams 24 hours' advance notice when drug testers are coming to test some of the players.

First of all, a lot of us didn't know that they gave the teams 24 hours' advance notice, and if he had this power and if he was so serious about drug testing, why didn't he do this years ago?

MITCHELL: Every drug testing program in the world, including the Olympics and every professional sport, did not start out full-blown as a perfect program. Every one started out as an effort based on the circumstances at the time.

And as they evolved, as problems arose, as concerns arose, as they became aware of vulnerabilities, they've taken steps to change them. It's an ongoing process, trial and error. You do the best you can in the circumstances that exist.

And keep one other fact in mind, Chris. In professional sports in the United States, the athletes are represented by unions. Under American law, drug testing in the workplace must be collectively bargained. That's not true of the Olympics or any other form of amateur sports.

So you have to get an agreement on both sides. It's collective bargaining. And you do the best you can in the circumstances, and then you improve it as you go along.

WALLACE: Now, several congressional committees are beginning investigations, as you well know, into your report and the whole question of steroid and performance-enhancing drugs in baseball.

As a former senator, what role do you think government should place in policing baseball?

MITCHELL: Well, my hope in this case, of course, is that the Congress and everyone -- the media and the public -- lets the commissioner's office and the clubs and the players association review this report, digest it, test it, analyze it, get their own experts.

I'm not the last word on this subject. A lot of people in this country know a lot more about this subject than I do. Get expert advice and then see how they respond. They can't do that in a matter of days.

The players association has 1,200 members. They're scattered all over the world. Christmas is a week away. It's not realistic to think that they can have that kind of consultation -- you know, they've got constituents, too.

Members of Congress -- I was one -- like to go out and test the views of their constituents on important issues. There are 30 clubs. There are many executives.

The commissioner can't right now, you know, make a final commitment on everything that's going to be done.

WALLACE: So would you tell the congressional committees to back off at least for a while?

MITCHELL: I hope so. I hope they'll let these people take a look at this, analyze it and do the best they can to come up with a reasonable solution.

WALLACE: Senator, finally, I know that in addition to doing this report, you are a big baseball fan. You're on the board of directors of the Boston Red Sox, and I must say I'm a Boston Red Sox fan, too.

How badly do you think baseball has been hurt by the practices that you've unveiled in your report?

MITCHELL: Well, obviously, there's no evidence in recent years that fans turn away because of this. In each of the last several years, baseball has set a record.

I myself am a fan. I'm not going to stop going to games. I love it. I'll probably go to more games next year than I did this past year because I was busy on this investigation.

But in the end, I think baseball has to do something, because if the skepticism that now exists turns to cynicism, then I think people may turn away.

Chris, could I take one second to touch on the one subject that I think is the most alarming in the report? You mentioned it, and that's the hundreds of thousands of young Americans who are now using steroids.

That's a very serious problem, and it's one that does -- it's not just baseball. Kids don't just look up to baseball players. They look up to role models in life, not just in sports.

I think that's a problem that every American ought to be concerned about -- shocked about, really -- not just baseball fans or those who follow sports.

WALLACE: Senator Mitchell, we're going to have to leave it there. We want to thank you so much for talking with us. And we all hope your report spurs baseball to clean up its act.

MITCHELL: Thank you, Chris.

WALLACE: Up next, the political battle over those destroyed CIA interrogation tapes.

And how far should the U.S. go in questioning the most dangerous terror suspects? We'll sit down with two key members of Congress when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: Joining us now to discuss the controversy over those CIA interrogation tapes are two key members of Congress on intelligence matters -- Republican Pete Hoekstra and Democrat Jane Harman, who comes to us from New York.

And welcome back, both of you, to "Fox News Sunday."

REP. PETER HOEKSTRA (R), MICHIGAN: Thank you. Good to be here.

WALLACE: On Friday, the Justice Department moved to block congressional investigations of the destruction of these CIA tapes, saying that it would jeopardize its own probe.

Congressman Hoekstra, does that mean your committee is going to stand down?

HOEKSTRA: No, I don't think so. I think what we're going to do is we want to hold the community accountable for what's happened with these tapes. I think we will issue subpoenas.

And once these witness appear in front of the committee, then I think we'll have to make the decision as to whether we're going to provide them with immunity or not. But our investigation should move forward.

WALLACE: So you're going to defy the letter that you got from the Justice Department.

HOEKSTRA: I think so. I mean, obviously, I need to talk with the chairman of the committee about that, but that directionally is where I would like to go, absolutely.

WALLACE: Why?

HOEKSTRA: Because I think it's important for Congress to hold this community accountable. You know, this community did not tell -- the CIA did not tell us about the existence of these tapes. They did not tell us that they were going to be destroyed.

There's a constitutional responsibility for them to keep Congress informed, and they have not, and we need to hold them accountable. The parts of this investigation that are being handled by justice -- that's a different issue.

But we need to hold them accountable because they did not respond and they did not perform the way we expected them to.

WALLACE: Congresswoman Harman, are you confident that justice can investigate this matter, especially given the fact that justice provided some advice over the course of these years to the CIA officials themselves? Or would you like to see an independent prosecutor?

REP. JANE HARMAN (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, I'd like to see Congress do its job. I agree with Peter. Congress and the Justice Department have conducted parallel inquiries many times in the past.

Recently, we both were looking at leaks when I was ranking member on the Intelligence Committee. We're an independent branch of government and, oh, by the way, part of this is that Congress -- specifically, I -- warned them not to destroy the videotapes.

I sent them a letter in 2003, and they did it anyway and they didn't tell us. So I am worried. It smells like the cover-up of the cover-up.

I'm also worried about the CIA being the partner here. The inspector general at the CIA, I read a couple months ago, was being investigated by one of the counsel at the CIA.

Congress does absolutely need to exercise its constitutional responsibility. We're an independent branch of government and we can do this very well.

WALLACE: Congresswoman Harman, as you point out, you did, back in 2003 when you became the ranking member, Democratic member of House Intel, warn the CIA, after you were informed about these tapes, not to destroy them.

Over the course of the last few days, CIA Director Hayden has said the reason was because they wanted to protect the identities of the CIA interrogators on the tapes from retaliation from terrorists if these tapes should ever leak out. Do you buy that explanation?

HARMAN: No, I don't. Why did they do the tapes in the first place? At least I don't know what the answer to that question is.

But secondly, the CIA's pretty good at keeping secrets. And if there was a reason to do the tapes in the first place, and if they were warned not just by me but apparently by someone in the White House and others not to destroy them, especially because in 2005, Congress, the courts and others were -- and the 9/11 commission were asking for evidence of this type, I can't imagine that that answer will hold up.

WALLACE: So let me ask you about that, Congresswoman Harman. Do you think that they were destroyed -- these tapes were destroyed back in 2005 to obstruct the investigations and prosecutions that were going on at that time?

HARMAN: We don't know that. That's, again, why there has to be a fair investigation by Congress, among others. I'm not ruling out an outside commission, but I don't think we need it now. I think Congress is very capable. If we run into problems, maybe we have to consider it.

But you just heard Pete Hoekstra. On a bipartisan basis, the House Intelligence Committee wants to get to the bottom of this and isn't going to back off for the attorney general here, who I think, as I said, may be doing something that won't give the public confidence that it was a full and fair investigation.

WALLACE: Congressman Hoekstra, CIA Director Hayden appeared this week before your committee. Are you satisfied that over the years the CIA acted in good faith?

HOEKSTRA: No, I'm not. I mean, I'm concerned that there were certain statements that came out of the community that might have been misleading to Congress as to exactly what existed.

I think you've got a systemic problem here. I think the community is incompetent. It is arrogant. And it has developed -- it's become political.

You know, you take a look at WMD in Iraq. They were wrong. The two NIEs on Iran -- they were wrong. The whole fiasco with Joe Wilson. And now the tapes...

WALLACE: The Valerie Plame...

HOEKSTRA: The Valerie Plame thing. It was handled terribly. And now the tapes.

So you've got a community that's incompetent. They are arrogant. And they are political. And they don't believe that they are accountable to anybody. They don't believe that they're accountable to the president.

They've clearly demonstrated through the tapes case that they don't believe that they are accountable to Congress. And when we are at war, that is a terrible position for the intelligence community to be.

If they had done what they are supposed to do on the tapes -- keep us informed, listen to the kind of recommendations that my colleague Jane Harman made to them -- we wouldn't even be having this discussion today.

HARMAN: Chris?

HOEKSTRA: But because of their arrogance and their willingness to move independent, that's it.

WALLACE: I have to ask you to follow up, Congressman Hoekstra. Do you have full confidence in Director Hayden?

HOEKSTRA: When you say that the community is incompetent, I'm telling you I don't have confidence in the community. You know, I have high confidence that the community continues to be broken and is not giving us, as policymakers, the information that we need to make good decisions.

HARMAN: Chris?

WALLACE: Let me just follow up.

Including CIA Director Hayden.

HOEKSTRA: I'm talking about the leadership in general. These are all the same people that have been there for the last five or six years. The only fresh blood in the community is Mike McConnell.

WALLACE: Who's the director of national intelligence.

HARMAN: Chris?

HOEKSTRA: Who is the director of national intelligence. And I think that we're going to hold Mike Hayden accountable, because some of these misleading statements to Congress occurred on his watch.

HARMAN: Chris?

WALLACE: Congresswoman?

HARMAN: Yes, I would distinguish the workforce of the community from the leadership of the community.

Peter and I have been all over the world talking to very capable people who are in austere locations, away from their families, trying to get it right. And I, frankly, think that the recent NIE on Iran was the best work product they've produced.

The leadership, in my view, becomes political. And that's wrong. Remember, there was a purge going on in 2005 by Porter Goss as the CIA director and his top staff of people, members of the community that they thought were leaning Democratic. I think that that is outrageous.

We need the best intelligence we can field. Then we need wise policymakers to use it as a tool to make wise policy. That part has been broken for many years, and we've all suffered from that.

WALLACE: Congresswoman Harman, at the heart of all this is the debate and the controversy over waterboarding. The tapes reportedly show that this technique was used on two key Al Qaida operatives, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.

And a former CIA officer says that waterboarding broke Zubaydah in just 35 seconds. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KIRIAKOU: Waterboarding was developed for a very specific purpose. And it was successful in allowing us to achieve that goal of getting that information that saved American lives.

And like I said, now I think enough time has passed that it's an unnecessary technique and it shouldn't be used.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Congresswoman Harman, was waterboarding wrong? Didn't it, as that CIA officer said -- didn't it save lives? And to some degree, aren't we judging 2002 actions from the luxury of 2007 hindsight?

HARMAN: Well, let's start with the fact that we do want interrogations to get the truth. My information is that extreme interrogations often do not get the truth.

I buy John McCain's line. I think he has the most authenticity of any member of Congress on this subject. And he says waterboarding is torture and it doesn't work.

I'm pleased that we're now moving the separate CIA program under the - - I hope we will do this, anyway -- the Army Field Manual. I think for many reasons that Peter has said, the CIA has lost its credibility to run separate programs.

And by the way, when we're talking about leadership, it is the White House that believes the Constitution starts with Article II. That's the power of the executive. It ignores Article I -- that's Congress -- and Article III -- that's the courts.

We have a system of checks and balances, and it's broken. We're in constitutional crisis because of the arrogant view of some in this administration that they can decide what the policy is, write the legal opinions to justify that policy, and be accountable to no one.

WALLACE: I have to ask you, Congressman Hoekstra, I mean, when you've got a CIA officer who says they broke Abu Zubaydah in 35 seconds -- when you have George Tenet, who was then CIA director, who says this enhanced interrogation program provided more actionable intelligence, intelligence that saved people's lives, than any other program -- was it really so bad?

HOEKSTRA: Well, I think we ought to leave in our toolbox of interrogation methods everything that is legal under the Constitution and under the law to make sure that we get the information that we need to keep America safe.

And the last thing we ought to do is telegraph to Al Qaida or other terrorist organizations exactly what may happen if and when they are captured. I don't want to give them our play book.

WALLACE: All right. We're going to have to leave it there.

Congressman Hoekstra, Congresswoman Harman, we want to thank you both for coming in today and talking with us.

HARMAN: Thank you, Chris.

WALLACE: Spirited conversation. Thank you.

HOEKSTRA: Thank you.

WALLACE: Coming up, with less than three weeks till Iowa, we'll take a look at both presidential campaigns and why the frontrunners in both parties are faltering. Back with our Sunday regulars in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CAROLYN WASHBURN: How will you rely on so many Clinton advisers and still deliver the kind of break from the past that you're promising voters?

OBAMA: Well, you know, I am...

H. CLINTON: I want to hear that.

(LAUGHTER)

OBAMA: Well, Hillary, I'm looking forward to you advising me as well.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: That was the sound bite from this week's Democratic debate in Iowa.

And it's time now for our Sunday group -- Brit Hume, Washington managing editor of Fox News, and Fox News contributors Mara Liasson of National Public Radio, Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard, and Juan Williams, also from National Public Radio.

Well, it was that kind of week for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. He could seem to do almost nothing wrong. She could seem to do almost nothing right, except that we have to say that she did this morning win the endorsement of the Des Moines Register, which is important out in Iowa.

But, Brit, with polls showing him surging in Iowa and in New Hampshire, and her struggling, where is this race now?

BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS WASHINGTON MANAGING EDITOR: Well, it is in a -- quite a state of turmoil. After all, it might be that neither of them wins Iowa. It could be that if they continue to attack each other, the beneficiary will be John Edwards.

And John Edwards could come up on the outside and win, and then he would enjoy what someone described as the rocket fuel coming out of Iowa.

It's also the case that sometimes the boost out of Iowa finds no effect in New Hampshire. So the truth is we don't know what the hell is going on.

(LAUGHTER)

And we've been covering this race now for more than a year. It seems to be very advanced, but nobody's voted yet. And until somebody does, I don't think we'll know what the real...

WALLACE: Mara, what do you make of these two trend lines, Obama up and Clinton down?

MARA LIASSON, NPR: Look. The trend is definitely Obama with the momentum. Now, Clinton still has a formidable organization, and her voters are the kind who tend to go to the polls, et cetera, et cetera.

However, one thing that I do disagree with Brit on is you're not seeing Obama and Clinton get into the kind of argument that you saw Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt in -- in other words, where there was so much attack between them that the other guys standing on the sidelines looked better and prospered. I don't think that's happening this time.

But I do think that this perfectly disciplined, never-make-a- mistake Clinton campaign, which so many people wrote about for months, seems to be springing a lot of leaks, and you know, it wasn't just that kind of touche moment in the debate that you just showed.

It's also the comments of Billy Shaheen about Obama's drug use, which she had to publicly personally disavow. It seems like almost every single day there is a misstep from a campaign that, for a long time, seemed to have none. But that's because that campaign was never under the kind of pressure it is now.

WALLACE: Bill, let's talk about that, and what Mara is referring to is that Bill Shaheen, the co-chair of the Clinton campaign in New Hampshire, started raising questions and saying, "Well, the Republicans might bring up the fact that Obama used drugs, and maybe was he a drug dealer," and of course, this is something that Obama mentioned about himself, talking about when he was a young man 30 years ago. And she had to apologize for that.

Bill Clinton has been widely reported as furious about his wife's campaign, second-guessing some of the aides there. Have we overestimated the vaunted Clinton machine from the start?

BILL KRISTOL, WEEKLY STANDARD: Yes, I think perhaps. I think the vaunted Clinton machine is about to have a nice civil war, which will be fun to watch, as Bill's people try to take over from Hillary's people.

And Mark Penn, who's been the chief strategist to the Hillary campaign, is now under assault from lots of people who haven't liked him for quite a while. But it does come down to the candidate, and I do think that moment we just showed was very revealing. I mean, why is Hillary Clinton laughing or, if I might say, cackling, when this perfectly innocuous, silly question is asked of Obama -- your advisers are former Clinton advisers -- as if everyone's foreign policy advisers at this stage wouldn't have served, on the Democratic side, in the Clinton administration somewhere?

(CROSSTALK)

KRISTOL: But anyway, it's an innocuous question. Obama's about to answer it. And suddenly this kind of high-pitched laugh and then, "I want to hear this." Isn't that revealing? What does that mean?

Why does she want to hear -- she thought this was kind of a "gotcha" moment where Obama would have trouble with the answer. And I think he showed something with his quick comeback -- not just quickness, but toughness.

You know, the question for someone like Obama -- nice guy, impressive guy, well liked and respected. Is he tough enough to be president? Now, obviously, a riposte in a debate doesn't prove that you're tough enough to deal with Ahmadinejad or with Putin.

Nonetheless, nonetheless, there was a kind of toughness that Obama showed there that I think will help him.

JUAN WILLIAMS, NPR: Well, I thought Obama did splendidly. I was joking with Brit earlier that it's the kind of moment that you have in the shower several days later. You say, "I should have said that," you know, but it was just terrific that he had the presence of mind to do it.

But I think I disagree with the rest of you about Hillary Clinton. I think she did great in that debate.

And I think she ended on a very strong point when she said there were people like Obama who hoped for change, there are people like John Edwards who are out there lambasting the corporate titans as ruining and corrupting government, but that she is someone who will work for change.

And you saw that reflected in the register's endorsement when they talked about her as someone that embodies competence and experience.

And I think that that is a message that more and more voters have to come to as they approach what is the holiday season, when everybody's going to be busy. I think that's a message that sticks as you approach January 3rd.

KRISTOL: Well, it's a nice message, but, you know, what change has Hillary Clinton competently brought about? I mean, that's a serious question.

This is Miss Experience, Mrs. Experience, but the one thing she took charge of in her husband's administration was health care, which was a fiasco, at the beginning of the Clinton administration.

She's been an adequate senator from New York. I don't believe there's a single piece of legislation that she can point to. So she's the experienced candidate who can competently produce change. But where's the beef?

WALLACE: Let me just switch, if we can, to Obama, Brit, because he is soaring now as the agent of change. But doesn't he still have a lot of vulnerabilities when it comes to the question of his experience and what exactly he stands for?

HUME: That's true, Chris, but the primary season has not always been the place where you could run on your experience.

People in primaries, you know -- it's the parties themselves voting. They tend to vote for a candidate that they're the most enchanted with or the one which most -- is most closely aligned with their positions on the issues.

And I mean, I've seen frontrunners. I saw it happen with Walter Mondale in 1984. He was unquestionably the experienced candidate in the field, and got knocked off by Gary Hart in New Hampshire, and very nearly lost the race.

Hart didn't have the campaign to capitalize on his New Hampshire win, and Mondale was eventually able to overtake him. But it was a long, tough slog and it was very heavy lifting.

I don't think that this experience question, when people go into the voting booth to vote for a nominee or to vote for convention delegates in one state, works very well.

And I don't think that Obama's lack of experience is necessarily a problem when people are looking for change, which is the reason why, Chris, I think that Bill Clinton being out on the trail for Hillary is a two-edged deal.

Yes, he's an enormously popular and talented politician, great speaker and all that. On the other hand, he is unquestionably the man of the past, and he reminds -- he's basically saying let's go back to the future.

WALLACE: It is interesting, Mara...

LIASSON: He specifically says that. He uses those words.

HUME: Yes. Right.

WALLACE: It is interesting, Mara, because Clinton was on the Charlie Rose show the end of this last week and he went after Obama and said, "You know, it would be like rolling the dice because this guy is so inexperienced."

And Obama came back and actually quoted Clinton from 1992 when he was the candidate of inexperience against George H.W. Bush, saying, you know, this experience thing is overrated.

LIASSON: Yes. Touche again. I mean, look. They have tried -- the theme of the Clinton campaign all along has been, you know, she's the more experienced candidate, and that's what we need. I mean, and it just hasn't worked so far.

You know, don't forget, for a very long time, the dynamic of the Democratic race was stable. Obama had flat-lined for a long time. In the Obama camp they were wondering if this just wasn't working.

And all of a sudden, he's had a kind of steady -- a slow but very steady surge.

WALLACE: And, Juan, what about John Edwards, who, as Brit rightly points out, is right up there in the polls? Some people say he's got the strongest field organization in Iowa. He's certainly been working it.

WILLIAMS: Oh, he's been working it, and he's been on the ground. And remember, last time he got the Register endorsement.

And he has a network of people that I think is somewhat hidden, because I think people are still identifying with him as someone who relates to them on an individual basis in Iowa, that he really understands the problems of an economy where you have more outsourcing, and people don't seem to understand that it's harder to pay for health care, education and the like.

Let me just make one point, though, about this cocaine business with Obama. I find it so scurrilous and awful, but again, I think it's the kind of political tactic that sticks in people's minds because it was about is he going to be vulnerable to Republican attacks as the party's nominee in the general election.

And I think people think, "Well, gee, if that's out there," you know, so it introduces doubt. And I think Billy Shaheen said it intentionally. I think that Mark Penn came back and said it intentionally.

HUME: Right.

WILLIAMS: I think it's part of a strategy.

HUME: But remember this. We had a focus group of Democrats in Iowa that Frank Lutz ran during that debate, and afterwards that question was put to them, about whether they thought it was a reasonable thing to raise or dirty politics, and it was unanimous and instantaneous -- dirty politics.

WILLIAMS: Didn't you know negative politics works in America?

LIASSON: Not in Iowa. It's different.

HUME: There you go.

WALLACE: All right. We need to give our sponsors some time to make some money. But coming up, we'll turn to the Republicans where the race gets more wide open every day. Our panel sorts it out, or tries to, when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: On this day in 1998, President Clinton ordered a bombing campaign on Iraqi targets after that country refused U.N. weapons inspectors access to key sites. Operation Desert Fox lasted four days.

Stay tuned for more panel and our Power Player of the Week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GIULIANI: This is a time for strength. This is a time to roll up our sleeves, not wring our hands. I've been tested in crisis. I'm ready to lead. And the time is right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: That was Rudy Giuliani on Saturday in Florida trying to get his campaign back on offense.

And we're back now with Brit, Mara, Bill and Juan.

Well, all year Rudy Giuliani has been leading in the national polls and his strategy has been, even though he's been trailing in early states, that once they get to Florida in late January, he's going to win.

But take a look, if you will, at the latest Rasmussen poll out of Florida, which shows Giuliani now in third place behind Huckabee and behind Romney.

Brit, how do you explain Giuliani's slide across the country? And can he reverse it?

HUME: I think Giuliani is suffering from the same thing Mitt Romney is, and that is they're all paying the price right now for the Huckabee surge.

And I think Giuliani's speech -- it may have had an effect in Florida. It's hard to assess that the day after, whether it's reverberating across the state of Florida to any degree at all.

Nationally, I don't think it's -- that speech will make a particle of difference. I think he's almost off the radar screen at the moment.

He's almost in radio silence, because all of the attention is now focused on the man who has seemed so suddenly to become the frontrunner, and that, of course, is Mike Huckabee. I have some thoughts about Mike Huckabee which we'll get to later.

WALLACE: We'll get to in a second, but let me ask you -- because I respectfully disagree with Mr. Hume, Mara. It seems to me Giuliani's got problems of his own.

LIASSON: He definitely does. And one of the other problems that he's in now is that -- I would never call him a second-tier candidate, but one of the definitions of being in the second tire or slipping is you're no longer in control of your own fate.

What he needs now is for Huckabee to beat Romney in Iowa. He needs something bad to happen to Romney, because he can't do it himself.

He's been unable to do it himself partially because of the strategy that he's laid out for himself, which, you know, is plausible, that he would somehow withstand losses in all of the early states and then start winning in Florida and on February 5.

I think that that is looking tougher and tougher to do because he's going to have lost a lot of things if he waits that long.

WALLACE: Bill, what's happened to Rudy Giuliani?

KRISTOL: I think they decided to run the campaign based on two things. He was a very effective mayor of New York -- and he really was a terrific mayor of New York -- and his performance on 9/11. It was a backward-looking campaign.

Tested, ready, now? Well, ready for what? I mean, what's the Giuliani agenda to be president? And it's almost a tragedy, because Rudy actually is a kind of policy wonk. He probably has lots of interesting ideas about what he would do as president.

But I don't think, if we went around the panel here, we could even say well, what's he running on. What's the agenda for the Giuliani presidency?

So I think he made it all about himself, about his record, but when you make it about yourself, it's also about other aspects of your past, and that stuff's emerged much more.

And I think a lot of Republicans look up and say, "Look, he was a good mayor. He did well on 9/11. But why should we make him president?"

WALLACE: Juan, let me ask you about this from a different aspect, because I think you could argue that both Giuliani and Clinton were both arguing and campaigning as the experienced candidate and, to a certain degree, as the national security candidate. They're the ones who will keep America safe.

To a certain degree, are they victims of the fact that Iraq is going better, and we're not hearing about the war in Iraq so much, and national security is no longer as much of an issue?

We start to see in the polls the economy, and the future, and lifestyle as more important, and national security is less important as voters' concerns.

WILLIAMS: I think that's right. And I think Huckabee comes across as a social conservative, and someone who speaks to faith and issues of character, and I think that that looms larger for the American people at this moment.

Now, you have things that could happen unintended, things that could happen along the way. You never know.

But I was struck yesterday in listening to Giuliani that he says, "Expect miracles." That's what he's hoping for at this point, because I think his campaign is on a slide.

And unlike Bill, my experience of Giuliani as mayor wasn't that he was a great mayor. You know, he was an unpopular mayor. In fact, as time was going by -- in fact, if you look at Michael Bloomberg today, Michael Bloomberg is a much more popular mayor of New York than Giuliani ever was.

WALLACE: Meanwhile, Brit, as you pointed out, Mike Huckabee continues to surge, especially in the early primaries, but he's taking some heavy fire now. And let's put some of this up.

It turns out that in 1998, he signed on to a newspaper ad that endorsed this statement from the Southern Baptist Convention, "A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ." And Huckabee has an essay in the new issue of Foreign Affairs Magazine in which he says this, "The Bush administration's arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad."

I should point out that Mitt Romney went after Huckabee on that yesterday. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROMNEY: I said, "Well, did this come from Barack Obama or from Hillary Clinton? Did it come from John Edwards?" No, it was one of our own. It was Governor Huckabee.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUCKABEE: Of all the people who had really called me as sounding like a Democrat, that really doesn't bug me a whole bunch.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: So, Brit, will Huckabee survive his turn in the spotlight?

HUME: Mike Huckabee is like a guy skiing ahead of an avalanche. And so far, so good. He remains ahead of the avalanche. You just showed a couple of the big snow boulders right there on the air. I don't think he could survive that stuff for very much longer, but who knows? He might.

But right now, he's ahead of the game, and he's moving fast down the hill, and everything's going his way. But there is trouble ahead for him.

And virtually everything that Bill said about the Giuliani campaign could be said about the Huckabee campaign. He's got all kinds of baggage. The rationale for his presidency is a little hazy and unclear.

We now find out that he is opposed to the Bush foreign policy, apparently, and is emerging as a major critic of a president who still remains hugely popular, particularly on policy questions, with most of the electorate that Huckabee is now trying to attract.

I don't think this can go on forever, but he's ahead now.

LIASSON: Yes, he is, and he calls himself a paradoxical Republican. And I would say every day the paradox has become more sharply focused.

But it's true. Look, a lot of people agree that there's a bunker mentality in the Bush White House. The problem is that not too many of them vote in the Republican primaries.

But that's been a remarkable meteoric surge, unlike Obama's, which I think has been more, you know, organic and steady. But Huckabee is just like a phenomenon.

But I do think even if he wins Iowa, rushes to South Carolina, I still think -- not just because of the baggage, because he doesn't have the resources to compete across the board on February 5th the way that Romney does.

WALLACE: Bill, as we sit here today -- and we should report that John McCain made some news as well. He won the endorsements not only of the Des Moines Register but also of the Boston Globe, which is very influential in southern New Hampshire, though not necessarily with Republican voters.

But let me ask you a bigger question. Who is the frontrunner in this race on the Republican side?

KRISTOL: I really think there isn't one. I mean, I've been saying for a while it's a five-way race. There are five plausible victory scenarios. Some are a little more plausible than others. But I just don't think you can honestly say there's a frontrunner.

WALLACE: You really think that any of these five guys -- and we obviously include Fred Thompson with Romney, McCain, Huckabee and Giuliani -- any of them could win this nomination?

KRISTOL: Oh, absolutely. Yes.

WILLIAMS: Yes. I mean, they don't have a candidate. You know, I mean, it's some -- I guess you could blame President Bush for not endorsing anybody, not putting anybody in position to be the heir apparent.

You could blame John McCain, who was, to my mind, the heir apparent, whose campaign has run into problems on so many issues.

But to my mind, what's interesting here is that none of what you guys said in terms of Huckabee is what people are using to try to drag him down. They're going back to the immigration issue.

And to my mind, what he has said not only about immigration, but what he said about the war -- you know what? It really appeals to a lot of people in the middle. I think he'd be -- it's becoming clear that he would be the most effective standard-bearer for the party if the party would get behind him. But at this point, the Republican establishment is not behind everybody. The big money players -- they've been holding back. I think the party feels like they don't have a candidate

WALLACE: All right. I want to ask the same question with 30 seconds left.

Brit, who's the frontrunner in this race right now?

HUME: Bill's right. There isn't one. You know, I don't see it. I mean, I...

WALLACE: And are there any of these five that you would rule out and say, "I don't think he really has a chance?"

HUME: Well, it is fair to say, I think, that Fred Thompson's campaign has gotten very little traction and seems almost to have peaked about the time that he entered the race. But beyond that, you know, the others are still in play.

WALLACE: And, Mara, you get the final 10 seconds.

LIASSON: I agree. I put less money on Fred Thompson, but there is no frontrunner in the Republican race.

WALLACE: Fascinating, and we're less than three weeks from Iowa.

Thank you, panel. See you next week.

Time now for some mail, and you had a lot to say about the refusal of Democrats Barack Obama and John Edwards to come on "Fox News Sunday" all this year.

Carla Barnard writes, "Are they afraid of something? These people want to lead our nation. What's going to happen when a rogue nation threatens us? Are they going to run with their tails between their legs like they do from your show? At least Clinton has the guts to talk to you."

And Stan Vath from Oxnard, California adds, "Until you start throwing softballs, don't expect any Democrat to show up."

By the way, John Edwards is appearing today on ABC, CBS and CNN. But once again, he and Obama turned us down.

Be sure to let us know your thoughts by emailing us at fns@foxnews.com.

Up next, our Power Player of the Week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: The man you're about to meet is a dear friend of mine, which is why we haven't done a story about him all these years.

But he's now involved in so many interesting projects, we could no longer avoid making him a Power Player of the Week.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TED LEONSIS: I try to find something that's just inherently positive from a consumer standpoint.

WALLACE: Ted Leonsis is Washington's renaissance man, an Internet mogul who keeps branching out. The link among all his projects -- the belief you can make money while still doing good.

Have you ever thought that maybe you have attention deficit?

LEONSIS: I think my wife thinks I might have ADD. WALLACE: His focus now is on Nanking, a documentary he's produced about the Japanese siege of the capital of China in 1937.

While some 300,000 Chinese were killed, a handful of westerners stayed behind to protect thousands more. Famous actors read their diaries and letters.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ACTOR: I was born and grew up here in China. My parents were both missionaries.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEONSIS: I closed my eyes and said would I have had the courage and the moral obligation to have stayed behind and tried to save all of those people. And I just felt compelled to tell that story.

WALLACE: And Leonsis decided to start a new kind of movie-making he calls "filmanthropy."

LEONSIS: We want to right a wrong. We want to help raise money around a cause. And so I'm unabashed in saying that "filmanthropy" is what it is.

WALLACE: But that's not enough for Leonsis, who's also launched revolutionmoney, which intends to revolutionize the money transfer and credit card business, charging much lower fees.

LEONSIS: I think it will be a great investment. I think that using Web 2.0 technologies to transform old businesses is really what the new economy is all about.

WALLACE: And then there's the hockey team he owns, the Washington Capitals.

LEONSIS: When your name is on a Stanley Cup, you're the best there is, and I'd really like to have that feeling on something.

WALLACE: If you wonder how you get to be Ted Leonsis, here's the billion-dollar idea he had at age 24.

LEONSIS: I said, "Oh, my gosh, this computer and that television -- they're going to start to look the same, and we call these programs, but T.V. calls it programs. There's going to be a confluence of this technology." And this light bulb went on. That was 1981.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AOL ANNOUNCER: You've got mail.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Within two years, he was helping to build America Online, where he made his name and his fortune. If there's one story that tells you about Leonsis, it's the time he survived a plane crash-landing in 1983 and came up with a new project.

LEONSIS: I made this list of 101 things to do before I die.

WALLACE: They range from financial goals to family to winning an Oscar. And so far, he's checked off 72.

LEONSIS: My goal, as odd as it might sound, is when I do pass away, I hope to have all 101 things done. I'd like the list published and passed around. I want my friends to say he lived a life without regret.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE: The movie Nanking was released in New York this week and opens across the country next month and, yes, it's on the list of possible nominees for an Oscar.

Now, this program note. Next Sunday we'll have an "American Leader" interview with Joel Osteen, the nation's most popular televangelist.

But that's it for today. Have a great week and we'll see you next "Fox News Sunday."

About Us | RSS | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy         © RealClearPolitics 2008