“You call Stuart Varney’s continually trying to get the people he was interviewing to say that she resigned because of the pressure she’s been under as being objective?”
Yes, because she baically said as much herself, referencing all the lawsuits lodged against her, and the insults and jokes about her and her family. To deny this is to deny the obvious, and Varney was perfectly correct to discuss it as a distinct possibility. Charles Krauthammer just said as much. Sarah Palin said as much. Live with it, unless in your idol worship you can brook no objective commentary. Then you are as bad as the Obama worshippers.
You may think it was fair for Varney to push the issue that she resigned because of the pressure, but I personally didn't like it. He insinuated that she was weak and running from it all, and to me it seemed like he was desperate to get someone to agree with him. I don't believe it's a reporter's job to try to put words in peoples' mouths, or force them to say something they don't want to say. He kept trying to do that by pushing people to come to a conclusion over why she resigned, and what her resignation meant. Is she a chicken? and if so, how could she possibly think of running for President if she folds under pressure? He deliberately ignored her words. She specifically stated that she couldn't allow the State, or its people, to continue to pay for fighting the unending ethics complaints, just so she could stay in office. She also didn't think it was fair to the people that she was unable to spend the time she felt she needed to properly carry out the duties of Governor. Rather them give them a part-time Governor, she chose to step-down. Yes, the ethics complaints played a part, but not in the manner Varney or others seem to think they did.