That’s the part that confused me. “This matter is mentioned in the book, so I don’t want to talk about it here. Instead I want to talk about what’s in the book.”
I wasn’t interested in reading her book; however, since her book is obviously about gay marriage, I might be inclined to read it. Or am I being misinformed?
[QUOTE=Dewey Finn]
That’s the part that confused me. “This matter is mentioned in the book, so I don’t want to talk about it here. Instead I want to talk about what’s in the book.”
[/QUOTE]
It’s simple. She only will talk about things in her book, but since she covers gay marriage in the book, she doesn’t need to talk about it to Piers Morgan.
You may one day get your wish. By the sound of it, she is dumb enough to think she can walk on water. From her wiki article:
Frankly, I don’t know what possessed her.
This is all assuming Chrissy O even read the book, never mind wrote it.
Picturing her stomping off all flushed and haughty, her little hard heels click click clicking rapidly down the hall, kinda turns me on actually.
Morgan said he read her book and was discussing what was in it. But in Republican land asking about what you actually said is a “gotcha question”. He was discussing the book .Asking her about gay marriage should have been expected. It was in the book. I get the feeling that she did not know what was in the book and did not want to show how dumb she is. It failed.
What bothered me the most is that you are a wanna-be politician and now an author cough-cough. Even if there was an agreement as to the topics to be discussed and what was off the table, if you want to be taken seriously as an author or a thought-leader on political or social issues, you better be able to handle yourself when things go off script. That she could not handle the situation speaks volumes about her actual ability to promote ideas or debate in the public square governance issues.
Just my opinion but it is a general problem with today’s political/social leaders that they cannot go “off script”. Everything is canned non-answers and no one every really calls them on the things they say and holds their feet to the fire to see how they respond.
Comedy Central.
I wish I were kidding.
Okay, I think she’s a moron and behaved immaturely, but I also don’t understand why Piers didn’t just drop it. He just kept pushing her and pushing her when he could have easily changed the subject. And he seemed to enjoy her discomfort.
Well that’s the thing, I know that the USA does brilliant political satire but I just never see the top flight people getting really pushed in a serious show.
But thanks to the others for pointing in various directions, I’l give them a look.
No, but I do confuse Christine O’Donnell and Rachel Ray. at least visually.
I think it would have been funny if Piers had said, “Look, I am dreadfully sorry, I am going to go off for some tea and you just talk about whatever the hell you want for the next half hour.”
Ahhh yes! And then he beats her at the end and calls her a hag. Good times. Thanks for the reminder. 
They don’t. There is no U.S. equivalent to the likes of of Jeremy Paxman or (the guy who really started the tradition in Britain) Robin Day. This, frankly, is one of the reasons for the awful state of American politics. In Britain the most powerful of politicians (of all major parties), are subjected regularly to aggressive, probing, extended interviewing on national TV, a situation where they cannot get away with just the sound bites and slogans that have become almost the entirety of American political campaigning. Because of this, I think Britain is relatively safe from having an intellectually vapid movements like the Tea Party gain the sort of real power that it now has in America. British Conservatives (and, indeed, lefties) actually have to be coherent.
I fully support adoption of this activity in the USA.
She is promoting dangerous (in my opinion) political ideas, not to mention the oppression of homosexuals. It is not a political interviewers job to be “nice;” it’s his job to make everyone watching understand the real views of the person being interviewed, and if that makes the subject “look bad” or feel uncomfortable, all the better. She is being damned by what she put in her book. A feel good interview that never asks hard questions really isn’t an interview at all.
Morgan is trying to entertain an audience. The only reason someone like O’Donnell gets invited on a show like that in the first place is because she’s a kook. Nobody cares about her fiscal views. If just asked her about that, he’d be putting the audience to sleep. All she has to offer a national TV audience is the kooky, and if she isn’t going to bring that, she’s got no business being there in the first place.
I happened to be watching it at the time, and had no foreknowledge of what was going to happen. While O’Donnell clearly didn’t want to talk about gay marriage, it wasn’t her idea to walk off. Someone off camera told her to get up and leave, and someone stepped in front of the camera to block it. She kept asking someone “Are we leaving?” “are we done?” and then made an excuse about skipping another appointment in an almost apologetic way.
She wasn’t doing that badly up to that point, it was almost as if it were staged to make CNN and Morgan look like bullies, which he certainly was not being. I wonder what they’re saying about it on Fox today?
Of course it was staged.
Attention whores like Christine O’Donnell don’t willingly give up their moment(s) in the spotlight or 15 minutes of fame unless it’s part of a ploy to get even more publicity (or sell more books/rake in more donations/garner more TV appearance offers) in the long run by doing so.