Condoleezza Rice, Rick Perry, Ed Rendell, Roundtable

CHRIS WALLACE, HOST: I'm Chris Wallace. A defiant Iran says its nuclear program will continue, next on "Fox News Sunday."

Iraq, Iran and Russia -- we'll talk about the challenges for U.S. foreign policy with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, live, only on "Fox News Sunday."

The controversy over mandatory vaccinations of young girls to fight a sexually transmitted virus -- we'll sit down with the governor at the center of the storm, Rick Perry of Texas, as well as Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania.

This little girl beat the medical odds to live. Now the miracle baby has touched off a new debate over abortion. We'll have a report.

You Decide '08 -- it's Clinton vs. Obama, and Cheney vs. McCain. Who won and who lost? We'll hear from our Sunday panel, Fred Barnes, Elisabeth Bumiller, Bill Kristol and Juan Williams.

And our Power Player of the Week, the real-life hero from the spy thriller movie Breach, all right now on "Fox News Sunday."

And good morning again from Fox News in Washington. Here's a quick check of the latest headlines. On the eve of U.N. talks about how to stop Iran's nuclear program, President Ahmadinejad said today there is, quote, "no reverse gear", that efforts to make nuclear fuel will continue no matter what.

In Iraq, insurgents have carried out several attacks today. In one case, 41 people were killed near a college campus. But authorities in Baghdad say since the security crackdown began, the number of dead each day has gone down.

An Air Force II bringing Vice President Cheney home from Australia needed to have an electrical problem fixed when it stopped in Singapore for refueling. A spokesman says there was never a safety issue on board the plane.

Well, joining us now, the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice.

Secretary Rice, welcome back to "Fox News Sunday."

CONDOLEEZZA RICE, SECRETARY OF STATE: Thank you very much, Chris.

WALLACE: Let's start with Iran and those comments from President Ahmadinejad -- no reverse gear in its nuclear program. Your reaction.

RICE: Well, they don't need a reverse gear. They need a stop button. They need to stop enriching and reprocessing, and then we can sit down and talk about whatever is on Iran's mind.

But the international community has been steadfast. We have a Chapter 7 resolution that demonstrates that Iran is isolating itself. It's time for Iran to take a different course, and we hope they will.

WALLACE: Well, you talk about the international community. The members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany will be meeting in London tomorrow to discuss the idea of further future sanctions against Iran.

Given the fact that it took four months last year to get the Chinese and the Russians to agree to sanctions that Iran has since ignored, can you honestly say you think they will sign on to anything now that will be tough enough to change Iran?

RICE: Well, we're going to consult -- I consulted with my counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, when I was in Berlin, and with the German counterpart. We all agreed that we needed to pursue the Security Council track.

We're leaving open the track of negotiations because the best way to resolve this would be to have Iran come to the table. But, Chris, I think you have to look at what is happening in the debate in Iran and there are people who are questioning whether the policies that Iran is pursuing are indeed isolating Iran.

People are looking hard at investment in Iran, at the reputational risk, the investment risk of dealing with a country that is under Chapter 7 status in the international community. It's very rare to be under Chapter 7. There aren't that many countries that are in that U.N. category.

And I think what we're looking to is that people who don't want to endure that kind of isolation will stop, take a deep breath and give international negotiations a chance by suspending their program.

WALLACE: What is it that you want from Iran? Do you want regime change, or do you want behavior change? If you were to -- if they were to clean up their act, as we're now seeing in North Korea, or at least the first signs of it in North Korea, would you be willing to live with the current regime in Iran?

RICE: Well, the proposal that we made along with China, Russia and the E.U.-3 makes clear that if Iran is prepared to forego nuclear ambitions that could lead to a nuclear weapon that we would be prepared to enter into discussions about trade, even about politics.

But Iran also has other activities that it needs to stop. It needs to stop its support for terrorism in places like Lebanon and in the Middle East more broadly.

And it would be a good thing if the Iranian people, who are a proud people, who come from a proud culture, could have a greater say in how their government is run. But first things first.

What we need to do is to engage Iran on the basis of the international community's standard, which is that they need to stop their enrichment and reprocessing capabilities. And then Iran can reenter the international community, and I'm quite certain that we can discuss any and every thing.

WALLACE: So as with North Korea, we could live with the current regime if, and it's a big if, they could clean up their act.

RICE: Well, I have no doubt that the Iranian people want to be like other people, capable of carrying out their freedom of having greater pluralism in their politics. All of that is important.

The president has made very clear that around the world we're going to continue to advocate for democracy. We are. However, with Iran, in a situation in which they are in defiance of the international community and they need to change that behavior, then we can talk about everything.

And we'll talk about it with this regime. I've said that I am prepared to meet my counterpart or an Iranian representative at any time if Iran will suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities. That should be a clear signal.

WALLACE: Let's turn to Iraq. Senate Democrats are talking now about rewriting the 2002 congressional authorization for the use of force in Iraq.

Given that our mission there has changed so dramatically over the last four years, don't they have a point?

RICE: We don't need to do anything but to allow the commanders on the ground -- General Petraeus, who's gone out there as the new commander -- to pursue the course that he and other commanders have put together and have recommended to the president. That's what we need to concentrate on as a country.

I know it's extremely difficult. And yes, as the president has said, we've now overthrown Saddam Hussein. We are in a different situation, even, some would say, a different war. But the consolidation of a stable and democratic Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein is a part of what America owes to the Iraqi people, owes to the region and owes to ourselves so that our own security is there.

Chris, it would be like saying that after Adolf Hitler was overthrown, we needed to change, then, the resolution that allowed the United States to do that so that we could deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after he was overthrown. It's a part of a continuum of what we're trying to do in Iraq.

WALLACE: Now, Senate Democrats say that they want to modify the authorization to basically draw down the U.S. combat role within a year. If that goes through, would the president feel bound by such a measure?

RICE: Well, I think the president is going to, as commander in chief, need to do what the country needs done. And I can't imagine a circumstance in which people are trying to manage the flexibility of our commanders to do what they think they need to do on the ground, to take on the enemy that they face, when they face that enemy, to send troops to do that, to rely on the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the service chiefs to determine the training levels.

I can't imagine a circumstance in which it's a good thing that their flexibility is constrained by people sitting here in Washington, sitting in the Congress, trying to micromanage this war. I just don't think it's a good thing.

WALLACE: On the ground in Iraq, thousands of Iraqis protested across the country yesterday because Amar Hakim -- you can see the pictures there -- son of one of Iraq's most powerful Shiite politicians, was detained by U.S. troops along the Iranian border.

Hakim says that American soldiers handcuffed him and that one kicked him. First of all, are any of those charges true?

RICE: Well, the ambassador has apologized for this incident and people on the ground say that they do not believe that he was mistreated.

But clearly, this is someone who probably should not have been put in these circumstances, and we're sorry. Things happen in a region like this, particularly when you're trying to deal with security matters.

But we have an excellent relationship with Abdul Aziz Hakim. I've met with him numerous times myself. We have a good relationship with his people, and I think we'll continue to pursue that relationship.

WALLACE: You have also continued to express confidence in Prime Minister Maliki, but he has missed one target date after another for political reform. They still don't have a law to share oil revenue. They still don't have a law to allow former Baathists into the government.

Secretary Rice, are you satisfied with what's going on in the government and political reconciliation in Baghdad?

RICE: Well, I was very clear with the Iraqi leaders when I was just in Baghdad last week that they do need to progress, and progress more rapidly, on the political reconciliation front. Now, it's hard. They're dealing with difficult existential issues about what kind of country they're going to be.

The oil law is not just an oil law. It's a law about dividing the resources of the country and therefore maintaining the unity of Iraq. So it's not easy.

But I've been very clear with them. The president's been clear with them that these political reconciliation measures are at the core of success for Iraq.

What I was very impressed with, Chris, when I went out were what I would call some of the inputs now to the Baghdad security plan. Iraqi forces are showing up. The prime minister has been tireless in going out and promoting the Baghdad security plan. He has the support of a broad segment of political leadership.

And I think that on the input side, they are doing what we expected them to do, including, by the way, rules of engagement that are permissive for their forces to do what they need to do, whether it's Sunni or Shia death squads.

These are all very good signs, but the Baghdad security plan is going to have good days and it's going to have bad days, and they're going to have to keep going in this direction.

WALLACE: You've got a lot on your plate, so let me ask you about another trouble spot, which is Russia. Russian president Putin made a sharp attack, a surprisingly sharp attack, on the U.S. recently, saying that we're trying to dominate the world through the hyper use of force.

A top Russian general has threatened to target Poland and the Czech. Republic if we go ahead with plans to deploy our missile defense system in their countries. Are we headed for new cold war?

RICE: No. First of all, Russia is not the Soviet Union, and we have to recognize that. It's a different place, and we have a different relationship.

We are cooperating with the Russians on a number of fronts, on North Korea, on Iran, in nuclear -- trying to prevent nuclear terrorism. We have a lot of areas of cooperation. We're going to disagree sometimes.

I don't think that the relationship is helped by language of that kind, and we've made that very clear, and I thought that Sergey Lavrov -- the Russian foreign minister's piece this morning in the newspaper tried to put this in better perspective.

I do think that the missile defense issue -- by the way, we've had more than ten formal contacts with the Russians about the missile defense briefings by the head of the Missile Defense Agency, discussions at the NATO-Russia Council. I've talked to Russian officials about it myself.

So the idea that we somehow surprised them about missile defense -- and then to go and say these things about Poland and the Czech. Republic -- independent countries, NATO members -- was, I think, unnecessary and unwarranted.

WALLACE: But let me just ask you briefly about that, because there is some feeling in the foreign policy expert community here in Washington that perhaps with the expansion of NATO right to the border of Russia, with now putting missile defenses in those countries, that we either have, one, made the Russians feel threatened or have created a climate where the Russian populace -- that for domestic consumption, it makes sense for them to attack us as if we are threatening them. RICE: I think the expansion of NATO and the expansion of the European Union is, in fact, one of the great stories of the post-Cold War time. It is one that has helped to consolidate a democratic and secure Europe.

And Russia has nothing to fear by having democracies on its borders, democracies that want to trade with it, democracies that have held with it a NATO-Russia Council in which we can talk about difficult issues.

And certainly, when it comes to missile defense, no one would suggest -- anyone who knows anything about this -- would suggest that somehow 10 interceptors deployed in Poland are going to threaten the thousands of warheads in the Russian deterrent.

Chris, I used to do this for a living, arms control -- you know, how many warheads could dance on the head of an SS-18. It's a ludicrous claim. And in fact, what we'd like to do is to pursue with the Russians the missile defense cooperation that we once talked about.

WALLACE: We have a couple of minutes left, and I'm not going to let you go without talking about a little politics. What do you think of Barack Obama?

RICE: Well, I know him. I think he's very appealing and a great person. He's on my committee. And we've always had good exchanges. I think he's an extraordinary person.

WALLACE: When you say he's on your committee, you mean the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

RICE: Yes, he's on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That's right, that's right.

WALLACE: Do you think he has enough experience especially in foreign policy to be president?

RICE: Oh, I'm not going to make that choice. The American people are going to make that choice, Chris. And I think it's also going to be a choice based on whether or not the American people think with any presidential candidate that they are capable of carrying out the responsibilities on terms that the American people agree with.

I think it's going to be a question of does that person share my values, does that person seem to represent my interests. It will be the same questions that have been asked about presidential candidates since we began this process.

WALLACE: I want to show you a recent Gallup poll, though. Take a look at this. It found that 94 percent of Americans would vote for their party's African-American nominee for president, more than would vote for their party's woman nominee or their Mormon nominee.

I suspect you disagree with Senator Obama on some policy issues. But what do you make of the fact that so many Americans would consider him or any African-American seriously as a presidential candidate?

RICE: I think it just shows that we've come a very long way. I do think we've come a long way in overcoming stereotypes, role stereotypes about African-Americans. I will say race is still a factor. When a person walks into a room, I still think people still see race.

But it's less and less of a barrier to believing that that person can be your doctor, or your lawyer, or a professor in your university, or the CEO of a company. And it will not be long, I think, before it's no longer a barrier to being president of the United States. And as I often to repeat to people...

WALLACE: When you say not so long -- well, excuse me. I didn't mean to interrupt you.

RICE: No, no, no, I was just going to say I repeat to people all the time, you know, if I serve my full term, we will not have had a white male secretary of state for 12 years -- a white woman, black man and a black woman. That says something about how far our country has come, even though we can't deceive ourselves. Race is still a factor in this country.

WALLACE: We're going to have to leave it there. Secretary Rice, thank you so much for coming and taking the time to talk with us. Please come back.

RICE: Thank you.

WALLACE: Up next, we'll go outside the beltway and talk with Governors Perry and Rendell about issues in their states, including a controversial vaccine against a sexually transmitted virus, coming up after this quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: While official Washington is preoccupied with the Iraq war, state governments are working on problems closer to our everyday lives. Joining us now, the governors from two of our biggest states, Republican Rick Perry of Texas and Democrat Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania.

And, Governors, thanks for coming in today.

Governor Perry, you are in the middle of a storm of controversy right now in Texas after ordering that all school girls entering the 6th grade must be vaccinated against the virus that causes cervical cancer. Question: Why make it mandatory?

PERRY: Well, there's two reasons. One's a compassionate reason. I can't look a young lady in the eye and tell her that I had the ability to prevent a cancer that's going to kill her and I didn't do it. I didn't have the courage to do that.

The second reason's a good Republican fiscal reason. We spend about $350 million every two years, our buy-in and budgets (ph), on Medicaid costs to deal with cervical cancer. This vaccine will cost us $35 million every two years. So there's a real fiscal reason. There's a real compassionate reason.

WALLACE: But parents say -- and I don't have to tell you this; you're hearing a lot about it -- that one, you're taking away their rights, and two, you are promoting in an indirect way sexual activity.

Here's what one parent had to say. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNE MARKHAM: I'm appalled. I can't even believe this is happening, quite frankly, that these children -- and these are children; these are little girls -- are being forced by the government...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Governor, how do you respond to that?

PERRY: Well, first and foremost, that is the reason that we put the opt-out in. We gave every parent, whether they had a scientific reason, a philosophical reason, a religious reason, to opt out. That makes great and good common sense. We gave them a choice.

But the bottom line is if we had a vaccine that would do away with lung cancer, I don't think that would tell people that -- you know, go out and start smoking, no more than this vaccine is going to deal with the sexual side of this.

WALLACE: Quickly, before I bring in Governor Rendell, the legislature is considering a measure that would basically just take away the connection and say that kids can go into the 6th grade without having had the vaccine at all. If they pass that, will you veto it or not?

GOV. RICK PERRY (R), TEXAS: Well, I was a member of the legislature, so I'm a big believer in respecting that process, and I also have a good background in civics and realize that a governor has some say in that. So until it shows up on my desk, let's just wait and see.

WALLACE: Governor, where are your state of Pennsylvania and you on the issue of the HPV vaccine?

GOV. ED RENDELL (D), PENNSYLVANIA: Well, first of all, I want to give Governor Perry some real credit for taking this issue head on. He never shies away from any issue and he deserves some credit.

I believe, as in your first question, this is a good idea. We should inform parents about the risk factor, but it shouldn't be mandatory. And if he has an opt-out, the real issue boils down to should it be the parents' responsibility to opt out or should we give them the choice to opt in. That's really the narrow issue.

But look. It does save money, but even more important than that, it saves lives. But I don't think we can make it mandatory. I think that's a role that the parents still have to play.

WALLACE: Let me turn slightly here, Governor Rendell. You have just proposed a new plan that would extend health care coverage to 800,000 uninsured Pennsylvanians, in large part through new taxes.

Have you given up on the federal government solving this problem?

RENDELL: Well, Chris, the answer is, right now, yes. I don't think we can wait -- the states can wait anymore. We're the fifth state, the third big state -- Massachusetts, California and Pennsylvania -- and if we want to save employer-based health care in America -- and that's a big question. But if we want to save it, it has to be buttressed by the states.

We can save it. We can do it in an economical way, in a cost- effective way. By covering all people in Pennsylvania, we save ratepayers almost $2 billion a year, because the cost of the uninsured isn't free. It gets passed on to all of us.

We also want to drive down the cost of medical errors -- hospital acquired infections, too many people going to emergency rooms that don't need emergency services. They go to the most expensive venue. We've got to redirect them to venues that are much cheaper.

We think we can do it. We think we can save money. We think we can extend coverage. Pennsylvania just passed a bill to cover all of our children and the federal government is cooperating in that effort.

WALLACE: Governor Perry, briefly, your reaction to the idea of state government getting much more involved in insuring the uninsured.

PERRY: Absolutely. As a matter of fact, one of the ideas that I laid out was selling our state lottery, taking part of those proceeds and creating an insurance trust fund to do just that.

And we're big believers that the states are where innovation is going to occur. I can promise you Ed knows Pennsylvania better than the folks in Washington, D.C., just as our people in Texas know Texas better than Washington.

We'd love for them just to block grant us the money, let us come up with innovative ideas and implement them to insure and take care of our folks.

WALLACE: It's interesting, because a number of states have also given up on Washington when it comes to global warming.

Governor Rendell, you just announced a new initiative in this area. Can a single state really do anything meaningful when it comes to an issue that's going to cross state borders like global warming?

RENDELL: Well, sure we can. Pennsylvania is the 19th largest economy in the world. Think of what that means for California. We can have an impact far greater than most countries in the world by taking steps in that direction.

And it's states that are leading the drive for alternative energy -- Governor Schweitzer, Governor Manchin, myself. Others are doing things to develop real alternative energy for us. Twenty-two states have passed advanced energy portfolio standards in the absence of a federal standard.

So yes, I agree with Governor Perry. Domestic policy, almost from the Gingrich Congress on down, has been devolved to the states, and we're now stepping up and taking that responsibility.

WALLACE: But, Governor Perry, you are more skeptical, are you not, about the idea of a state doing something about global warming?

PERRY: Well, I don't know what the science is, but I know that alternative fuels and all the alternative energy sources -- there's some great opportunity for innovation and wealth and job creation out of those, and we're really focused on that. Texas is the number one wind generating state in the nation now. We've got a big future gen project that we hope to be able to bring in on the coal gasification side. You can bet Texas is going to be right at the epicenter of all of the work on alternative energy sources.

WALLACE: I'm not going to let the two of you go without talking some politics, because, among other things, you're the governors of two of the biggest prizes in the whole 2008 presidential contest.

Governor Perry, Texas is considering moving your primary up, I think to February 5th, Super Tuesday. One, how do you feel about it? And two, do you worry at all that the process is going to get so front-loaded that we're going to end up with a nominee in both parties before most of the country even knows who these people are?

PERRY: Well, certainly, our legislature is moving toward the concept of moving that primary to February the 5th. And yes, I think people do have concerns that, you know, we're going to be two years out and primaries are going to be happening.

But the fact of the matter is states want to be something more than an ATM for candidates that show up. They don't care about your votes. They care about your money. And I think that's what's driving the process in Texas, and the legislature is debating whether we move it up.

WALLACE: So would you support that, moving it up?

PERRY: It's an interesting concept and I certainly want to see the legislation, but it's something that I think the legislature is full well behind.

WALLACE: Now, Governor Rendell, any thought about moving up Pennsylvania? And how do you feel about this front-loading process?

RENDELL: Well, I've talked to the legislature, and there's no appetite for doing that. The process is a mess. It is broken. It is badly broken.

Pennsylvania, which is one of the two or three most important states in the general election -- we have no input at all into who the nominee is. Our primary is in late April. It's a mess.

And the only way to fix it is to go back to the plan that the secretaries of state, a pretty non-partisan organization, proposed in 2000.

Let Iowa and New Hampshire go first because of tradition, and then have four regional primaries, 12 states each, a month apart so we don't get the front-loading, so we get to know the candidates a little better, so we get -- smaller candidates who aren't the big names have a little bit of chance. They don't just get knocked out in the first two primaries.

I think it makes sense. It's insanity what's out there now. It is not calculated to produce the best candidates for either side, and we've got to change it.

WALLACE: We've got about a minute left. I'm going to ask you each to take 30 seconds -- both of you have been talked about as possible vice presidential candidates, whoever wins.

Governor Rendell, interested?

RENDELL: You know, I've never worked for anybody since I was 30. I think I enjoy governor more than vice president.

WALLACE: But that's not a no.

RENDELL: Well, pretty much so, yes.

WALLACE: Really?

RENDELL: Yes.

WALLACE: OK.

RENDELL: I like to be my own boss.

WALLACE: And, Governor Perry?

PERRY: Yes, absolutely no. I got the best job in the world. Ask President Bush.

WALLACE: We're going to have to leave it there. Governor Perry, Governor Rendell, thanks so much for coming in and sharing part of your Sunday with us.

Coming up, she's called the miracle baby. We'll tell you her remarkable story and how it could change the debate over abortion. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: Chances are you saw the pictures this week of the so- called miracle baby, born less than 22 weeks after conception and now healthy enough to go home.

We got to wondering what Baby Amillia's story will mean for the debate over abortion. As Fox News correspondent William La Jeunesse reports, the debate has already begun.

William?

WILLIAM LA JEUNESSE, FOX NEWS: Well, Chris, the question of when life begins, at conception or birth, is a never-ending argument between those for and against abortion.

Well, a powerful statement arrived this week in a very tiny package when an infant that could have been aborted in 49 states lived, forcing many to reconsider their definition of viability.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SONJA TAYLOR: Everything a baby is supposed to do for her age she's doing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LA JEUNESSE: She's the youngest baby ever to survive after birth. Small as a ballpoint pen, lighter than a bag of lettuce, baby Amillia Taylor was released after almost five months in an incubator.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAM SMALLING: Usually these babies are just too immature and non- viable. And she told us early on from the start that she was a fighter and she wanted to be here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LA JEUNESSE: Now, a normal infant with a 9-month gestation averages 7.5 pounds and 20 inches long. Doctors delivered baby Amillia just over five months from conception. She weighed just 10 ounces and measured 9.5 inches.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BEN HAKAKA: This is exceptional, this baby survived. But I don't want people to have unrealistic expectations that every baby that's born at 22 weeks is going to be able to survive.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LA JEUNESSE: One in eight babies born in the United States are premature. Statistically, half who are born before 25 weeks develop significant problems.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HAKAKA: The majority of those, as they start getting to school age, have deficits, whether it's cognitive abilities or breathing problems, seeing problems, hearing problems.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LA JEUNESSE: A generation ago, most extremely premature infants died, unable to survive outside the womb. Prior to this case, doctors unofficially drew that line at 24 weeks, or the end of the second trimester.

In 12 states, that's the cutoff date for legal abortion. Twenty- three states leave it up to the doctor. And 14 states have no laws preventing an abortion at that age. Only in North Carolina would baby Amillia have been protected.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SUSAN ESTRICH: A story like this one, if you're on the pro- choice side, sends the message, you know, tamper down the windows, they're going to come at us again and say that second trimester abortion should be illegal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHARMAINE YOEST: Today, we have just under 20,000 babies a year that are aborted at exactly the same time or later than Amillia was. So she really, really does underscore the life of the unborn baby.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LA JEUNESSE: The pictures taken just after her birth are reminiscent of another controversial image. This cover from Life magazine in 1965 of a fully developed child inside the womb provided an emotional counterpoint to reproductive choice. Whether Amillia's birth has the same impact is an open question.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TAMMY BRUCE: And then the moral argument comes in, am I going to make a decision because there are feet that are fully formed, or based on is this even a biologically complete human being, which is not the case at 21 or 22 weeks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

YOEST: One of the things that the abortion movement is going to have to grapple with is that they are, in a sense, getting mugged by reality. The baby is a life, and Amillia serves to underscore that point.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LA JEUNESSE: Well, doctors warn this baby is the exception, not the rule. It is doubtful that states are going to suddenly go out and rewrite their statutes, but there's no question that this birth at the cutting edge of medicine crosses the current threshold of viability, and some doctors may reexamine when to intervene.

And it does raise the question of should abortions occur after 21 weeks.

In Los Angeles, William La Jeunesse for "Fox News Sunday."

Chris, back to you.

WALLACE: William, thanks for that.

Medical experts note the cost of caring for severely premature infants is enormous. One month at a neonatal ward can run $500,000.

Up next, it gets hot on the campaign trail almost a year before people start voting. We'll convene our Sunday panel to find out who won and who lost. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: On this day in 1971, both houses of Congress introduced legislation limiting the president's authority in Vietnam. The move barred an invasion of north Vietnam without Congressional approval.

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, D-N.Y.: I want to run a very positive campaign, and I sure don't want Democrats or the supporters of Democrats to be engaging in the politics of personal destruction.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BARACK OBAMA, D-ILL.: You know, it's not clear to me why would I be apologizing for someone else's remarks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Those were presidential candidates and Senators Clinton and Obama this week in the first campaign dust-off between the two Democrats.

And it's panel time for Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard, Elisabeth Bumiller of the New York Times, Bill Kristol, also from The Weekly Standard, and Juan Williams from National Public Radio.

Well, the fat was in the fire this week when entertainment executive David Geffen, who used to raise millions of dollars for Bill Clinton and now supports Obama, gave a newspaper interview in which he went after the Clintons, and suddenly the Clinton and Obama camps got into it.

Bill Kristol, what does this tell us about the state of the Democratic race? And if there was a winner between the two of them, who was it?

BILL KRISTOL, WEEKLY STANDARD: Obama was the winner. Geffen told Maureen Dowd that Hillary Clinton is a polarizing figure and probably can't be elected, that Bill Clinton is a reckless guy and hasn't changed his ways, and that the two of them lie even more than most politicians lie; they're particularly good liars.

And those are pretty damaging things for a leading Democratic fundraiser to say about the Clintons. And I think the Clinton campaign overreacted. Obama kept his cool.

A very bad week for Hillary Clinton, good week for Obama, who ended the week in Austin, Texas, with 15,000 people in the rain watching him speak at an outdoor amphitheater.

JUAN WILLIAMS, NPR: Well, the fat is in the fire because already the opposition research not only from Republicans but from the Hillary camp is going on on Obama, you know, saying what kind of record does he have in the Senate, what was his record back in Illinois, what were his votes on abortion, what has he accomplished in life. All that's coming out.

But I think that the contrary impulse is saying -- and you're hearing this from some of the state senators down in South Carolina where you have a large black voting population -- can a black person really lead the Democratic ticket or is it the start of a, you know, watershed loss for the Democratic Party.

WALLACE: Elisabeth, what about the counter-argument, that the Hillary camp wanted to knock or begin to knock Obama off his perch as being above politics, and also that they wanted to send out a message to all the Democrats: Don't mess around with talking about our past or our scandals?

ELISABETH BUMILLER, NEW YORK TIMES: I would agree with that. I think that, obviously, Hillary took on some water for going after Obama the way she did. But she achieved her goal of muddying him and bringing him into the political fray.

He's been getting coverage for the last number of weeks, what the Clinton camp considers laudatory coverage, and they feel -- and he's been talking about how he's above the fray, and they want to bring him down into, you know, the kind of bare knuckle politics they're good at.

FRED BARNES, WEEKLY STANDARD: I agree with that. I thought they brought him down a notch or two. I mean, the charges that David Geffen made, that the Clintons lie, and that she's ambitious, and they're polarizers and so on -- I mean, who knew? You know, we all knew this.

And David Geffen isn't exactly a household word around the nation. I mean, he is a big fundraiser for the Democrats. And look, I think Hillary needed to -- he was knocked off his perch at least temporarily. Maybe he recovered it by the time he got to Austin, Texas.

He is the flavor of the month, though, in the Democratic Party still.

WALLACE: Bill, then there's John McCain, and this one, I've got to say, confuses me because he's clearly trying to win over the conservative base of the Republican Party, which still has doubts about him.

This week he explicitly said something that Romney and Giuliani haven't or won't say, which is that he would like to overturn Roe vs. Wade. And then he was out in California with Governor Schwarzenegger, and he proceeded to go off after the Bush White House on global warming and Iraq. Let's take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, R-ARIZ.: I would assess this administration's record on global warming as terrible. The criticism of the conduct of the war is -- I have voiced for more than three years, when I saw that this train wreck was taking place.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Bill, is there some master strategy here that I'm missing?

KRISTOL: Look, McCain's being McCain, and he can't win either way. You know, he says these positions that he's had for years. He's to the left of the Bush administration on global warming. He was more hawkish, if you want to put it that way, on Iraq, a critic from the right, that we needed more troops to win the war.

And he just repeated his familiar positions. I mean, the media is over-interpreting this. Let McCain be McCain, and he'll do fine. WILLIAMS: I don't think it's over-interpreting. He is pandering to the far right. He's pandering to your guys and trying to say you know what, I can be loyal to the Republican Party, I can be loyal to President Bush on Iraq.

KRISTOL: On Iraq he's taking a politically risky position that the absolute consensus is endangers his frontrunner status and probably has hurt him already.

WILLIAMS: Correct.

KRISTOL: He's taking a courageous position out of principle, and that's pandering to the right?

WILLIAMS: Because the right wants evidence that he's not going to be the maverick, that he can be a reliable Republican conservative, and that's what he's doing. But he's got himself in such a precarious position that he keeps falling over himself.

WALLACE: My problem, Fred, is that he can do one thing or the other, but he seems to be doing both. Sometimes you could argue, allegedly, that he's pandering to the right, but other times he just sits there and starts shooting off and ended up in kind of a spat this week with Dick Cheney.

BARNES: Well, he did. And Bill is right. This is John McCain, and that's where he made his name, and that's why a lot of people like him.

However, this is not the way to win the Republican presidential nomination. What is the biggest group in the party? It's the conservative base, and they like the Bush administration. They like President Bush. They like his policies.

They admire McCain for his stand on Iraq, and they would like what he says about Roe v. Wade as well. But the other stuff is just going to alienate them.

WALLACE: Elisabeth, let me switch, if we can, to another big subject which we were talking about with Secretary of State Rice, and that's Iran. And there were some developments there this week. The U.N. announced that not only have they not stopped their program; in fact, they've sped it up.

We heard from Ahmadinejad today -- no reverse gear, full speed ahead. Tomorrow, as we pointed out, the permanent five members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany are going to sit down in London to talk about more sanctions.

Given the fact that sanctions did absolutely nothing over the last six months, the threat and then the reality, what's the point?

BUMILLER: Well, the Bush administration will say -- and there is some evidence that these economic sanctions have had some effect on Iran. It has isolated Iran a bit. And Nick Burns is going to London tomorrow to do whatever he can.

WALLACE: He's the number three guy in the State Department.

BUMILLER: Right, excuse me. And so he's not promising the world. He knows how tough it's going to be with the Chinese and the Russians.

But the administration is saying right now they'll take some modest increase in sanctions. And they feel that this kind of carrot and stick diplomacy -- Condi Rice saying I'm willing to talk any time you want as long as you give up, you know, producing nuclear fuel, and the threat of sanctions -- they feel that is having some effect.

WALLACE: Bill, is it a waste of time or is there some point in all this?

KRISTOL: Well, I think the pressure, the economic pressure, seems to be having some effect. And let's see if Nick Burns can succeed in ratcheting it up, because everyone agrees they need to move to the next step of sanctions either with the Security Council or outside the Security Council.

And we're putting some military pressure on Iran by sending the second aircraft carrier to the Gulf, and some political pressure. I myself would like a little more. Cheney repeated this week that the threat of force is not off the table.

I think the administration is doing a decent job of pressuring Iran, and also the threats, which I think need to be followed up on, about Iran exporting the improved explosive devices into Iraq which are killing U.S. soldiers.

WILLIAMS: Well, they've just defied all the U.N. sanctions so far. But what I understand is that the United States says you know what, we're not so much interested in necessarily forcing the hand of the Chinese, the Russians, who are concerned about their own trade with Iran, so much as they are in saying that there is a unified world presence, that the world is condemning and the world is concerned, and so I think that's what Nick Burns is going to try to...

WALLACE: But while the world is concerned, Iran continues to build more and more centrifuges.

WILLIAMS: But you have to understand, at this point, it's holding the unity. I think the unity then can come to some hard sanction down the road. But at this point, it's not necessarily going to the U.N. and getting tough sanctions through at this moment.

BARNES: There's a built-in problem with the sanctions, and that is a real economic squeeze on Iran could probably work. So far, all there's been is a pinch. And that hasn't done much.

But the problem with a serious economic squeeze, where you would cut off sending refined oil back to the Iranians and you would really reduce this huge amount of commerce between European countries and the Iranians -- the Europeans won't do it.

So while sanctions could work, there's sort of a built-in thing that stops them from working seriously because the Europeans won't go along.

WILLIAMS: Vice President Cheney's comments -- I think that will get the world unified, because it scares everybody.

BUMILLER: But on the other hand, that says there are mixed signals from the administration yet again. We've been there before.

WALLACE: Bill, let me -- and I've asked you this before. Let's talk about the end game in this. Do you think that this president will leave office on January 20th, 2009 allowing Iran to have its nuclear program, which would be that much further down the line, intact?

KRISTOL: I don't know. I don't know. I mean, I think we just need to -- no, I really don't know, and I don't know that the president knows.

WALLACE: That's interesting, because I think a while ago you would have said no, they won't.

KRISTOL: Well, look. You can't just suddenly use force, and the question is whether the president can build a predicate if he feels he has to use force over the next 1.5 years.

The key is to have the surge start to work in Iraq, continue to put pressure on Iran. And then I think if things have stabilized in Iraq, I think you could then easily build political support for being much tougher on Iran at the beginning of 2008.

WILLIAMS: No, I think people want to be tough on Iran. I don't know that the surge is going to work or not work, but that's not the issue. The issue is that you want to make sure that they aren't in a position to attack Israel and to destabilize the Middle East.

WALLACE: All right. Let's switch. We have a couple of minutes left, and I want to turn to a third subject which we talked about with Governor Perry. And I have to say, we had kind of a debate inside our own "Fox News Sunday" staff about this on Friday.

Governor Perry -- executive order mandating that all school girls going into the 6th grade must have this HPV vaccine which would fight the virus which causes cervical cancer.

Let me ask you, as a mother, Elisabeth, good idea or an invasion of parental rights?

BUMILLER: Well, I don't think any parent can predict behavior in children, so obviously, I think it's -- you know, I would support a vaccine for this kind of thing.

The question is do you make it mandatory like Rick Perry did. What I think is interesting is that in this case you have very opposing political forces lining up together.

You have the Christian right, which is opposed to this kind of vaccine on moral grounds. You also have people who are opposed to the pharmaceutical companies like Merck and Merck's very aggressive lobbying campaign, you know, joining forces. So I find that very interesting.

And what we saw last week was that Merck pulled out of this lobbying campaign because it was counterproductive. People were very questioning of its profit motive here.

WALLACE: Fred?

BARNES: Speaking as the father of three daughters...

WALLACE: Yes, I don't want to diminish fathers here.

BARNES: ... I'm in favor of it. I think Rick Perry has done the right thing. And as he pointed out, there is an opt-out. Parents can get out. You know, we do -- I think it's mandatory in most places for polio, for measles, for mumps. You have to take -- parents have to have their kids inoculated with vaccines for those.

WALLACE: No, but the different argument would be that those are communicable diseases in the classroom. The sexually transmitted virus, one hopes, is not.

BARNES: Well, look. If this works, and there is an opt-out -- and it looks like this vaccine would work -- I think he's done the right thing in Texas.

KRISTOL: I think it's ludicrous to make it mandatory. The was pushed by the drug companies, by Merck.

I mean, the left should be a little more outraged here by the pharmaceutical companies trying to make it mandatory to use a drug on which they have a patent and which is quite expensive, when it's perfectly possible, of course, to make it optional and to make it free if you want to the pharmacies, and let parents or the girls without even their parents' knowledge request it. That's all reasonable.

To make this mandatory for girls entering the 6th grade to get a vaccine against a sexually transmitted disease -- it's ridiculous.

WILLIAMS: Really? I mean, I think it's the most common sexually transmitted disease in the United States, and it's linked to cervical cancer.

So I agree with you about, you know, drug companies pushing something, but how do you make the argument when this could save lives and prevent disease?

As Elisabeth said, you can't tell that the kid's going to have sex or not have. You can push abstinence, but you can't insure it. And why wouldn't you want to protect their lives?

KRISTOL: So every girl entering the 6th grade has to get this vaccine.

BUMILLER: Unless you're a parent who says no. You have that...

WALLACE: Yes, but let me just say one thing about that, because some of the parents in Texas are saying hey, look, this is going to mean I'm going to have to go down to the health officer at the local school, and there's going to be some school bureaucrat, and they're going to lay a trip on me, and they're going to say you really don't think that this is important -- that this opt-out thing is going to be much more of a problem. You're able to do it, but it would not be so easy.

BARNES: It doesn't have to be. It doesn't have to be. I mean, the legislature -- the governor can make it easy for you.

WALLACE: I'm just telling you what the parents in Texas are...

BARNES: You know, just, I mean, check a form that's sent home with your child. That's all you need to do. And look, if they make it hard, then that's a different story, to opt out. But there's no reason why it should be.

KRISTOL: I just think everything else -- most of everything in our health system is optional. Parents can choose how to bring up their kids.

And for the schools to suddenly intrude on this, which is not a normal communicable disease of the kind that traditionally we've considered a public health problem is, I just think, an intrusion into the right of parents to decide, you know, how likely it is that their daughter is going to have this problem and therefore whether to get this vaccination or not.

You can get it in the beginning of 7th grade, the beginning of 8th grade, the beginning of 9th grade. It's not a one...

BUMILLER: Well, are you objecting to it on the grounds that it's too early? Would you wait till 15 or 16?

KRISTOL: Yes. Well, that's part of it. Yes, part of it is that it's -- what signal does it send to people? Sixth grade? I mean, I think it's ridiculous.

BUMILLER: You obviously have... KRISTOL: I have two daughters who have gone through this, and I -- no, and I mean, everyone laughs, sits and laughs, and it's very sophisticated. The schools, the government-run schools in the United States, are going to tell 12-year-olds entering 6th grade that they need a vaccine against a sexually transmitted disease?

WALLACE: Bill, say goodbye.

KRISTOL: Bye.

WALLACE: Thank you, panel. See you next week.