For those who HAVE seen it----------------
Oh, boy. Talk about a talk between two people who seemed to get along quickly degenerating to the guest walking out.
I can see both sides of the issue. I think Piers was fair in asking those questions about her views on sexuality. And she is NO longer running for office. And those views are ARE in the book. OTOH, I sort of see where she was coming from. I guess she felt that whatever she said regarding her Roman Catholic views would be used by CNN against her. OTOH, I guess Piers felt he had a right to ask those questions since they were in the book.
Ultimately, I think BOTH sides came out looking bad in the program.
I don't understand why O'Donnell would not want to discuss her views----that would have awesome. She calls herself a devout Catholic---------that would have been her chance to defend the faith against secular attacks. She didn't.
I guess she felt she was there to defend the Tea Party and put forward her own views as to what Obama is doing to the country only. She should have specified to Piers before the interview that she would not want certain things discussed. I can see Piers, though, saying "I should be able to ask whatver I want." I guess he also would have felt she was there only to push the Tea Party ideology forward. The question is----other people have pushed their ideology forward (both left and right) on his show---and he has allowed it. Why can't she? I guess he didn't want to be accused by folks of being "soft" on her.
I ultimately believe in what O'Donnell stands for and what she is supporting---------but I also think theywere acting according to "script." The bottom line is, neither of them came out good on the interview.
What do you guys think?