despite those nukes pointing at each other have really made some beautiful music together. the album has received high praise from critics in both countries. and four of the soundtrack's songs are currently in the top ten at indian site smashhits.com. there's more than 1 billion people here so being in the top ten there is -- a lot more people listening to you than here. in fact, the soundtrack is so popular that the film's producers planned a lavish music celebration in mumbai that was to feature all of the singers. indian and pakistani together. i say was. it was announced today india denied the pakistani singer's requests for travel visas. as a result, the council for fellowship was scrapped. now, if these two countries can't even agree on something this easy, this obvious that people in both countries like, how can they resolve the ongoing nuke crisis? maybe it shouldn't shock you that some say that india or pakistan, using their nuclear weapons, is still the world's single biggest nuclear threat. more than iran. more than north korea. still the world's biggest nuclear threat, more than iran and more than korea. thanks, as always, for watching. here's piers morgan tonight. tonight, the historic moment that may win or lose the election for president obama. >> i didn't do this because it was good politics. i did it because i believed it was good for the country. >> what the court did not do on its last day in session, i will

do on my first day if elected president of the united states. >> the supreme court dramatically keeps obama care alive. who are the real winners and who are the losers and what happens now? tonight, both sides debate it out. plus, patrick kennedy. health care was his father's legacy. and rick santorum, he's not happy at all. also, last night, about john edwards. >> i don't think he was in his right mind when he did that. he was temporarily insane. >> is rielle herself thinking straight? this is "piers morgan tonight." good evening. a big day for president obama. he states his presidency on health care. today, the supreme court upheld his signature legislation. the president acknowledged as much when he spoke shortly after the ruling came down. >> i know the debate over this law has been divisive. i respect the very real concerns that millions of americans have shared. >> so, what will today's health care decision mean in the election? joining me now, massachusetts governor duval patrick. welcome, governor. it's an interesting day, isn't it? it's obviously a very big -- >> it's a good day, piers. >> right, it's a good day. could it backfire in the longer term the election? could this now galvanize the republic million people who have no tonight, the historic moment that may win or lose the election for president obama. >> i didn't do this because it was good politics. i did it because i believed it was good for the country. >> what the court did not do on its last day in session, i will do on my first day if elected president of the united states. >> the supreme court dramatically keeps obama care alive. who are the real winners and who are the losers and what happens now? tonight, both sides debate it out. plus, patrick kennedy. health care was his father's legacy. and rick santorum, he's not happy at all. also, last night, about john edwards. >> i don't think he was in his >> i know the debate over this law has been divisive. i respect the very real concerns that millions of americans have shared. >> so, what will today's health care decision mean in the election? joining me now, massachusetts governor duval patrick. welcome, governor.

it's an interesting day, isn't it? it's obviously a very big -- >> it's a good day, piers. >> right, it's a good day. could it backfire in the longer term the election? could this now galvanize the republican base vote to come out and cause you bigger problems than the success is worth enjoying in the short term? >> well, let me say first, piers, something that may cause you and maybe some of your more cynical viewers to roll their eyes. the victory today is not a political victory. it's a victory for the american people. it's a victory for the 30 million people who have no health care. for the 130 million who have a pre-existing condition or who are at risk of going bankrupt. or were at risk of going bankrupt if they were seriously ill. it's a victory for all of the young adults who are able to stay on their parent's health insurance plans till the age of 26. this does a lot of good for a lot of americans. in the same way that the model for it here in massachusetts did a lot of good and does a lot good today for our citizens here at home. so that's the first thing. that's important first and foremost to the president and to me. politically, i think what you see is the republicans, once

again, are demonstrating that their only plan and their only agenda is to say no when the president says yes. it's true of health care. it's also true of his jobs plan. it's true of deficit reduction. whole host of things. so that choice, which is not a neutral policy choice, it's really about, are we in this together? are we going to do what's necessary to lift the country? versus what congressional republicans have been driving. which is to tear each other apart. and tear the country down. i think is more and more on display for the american people to choose. i think the american people will choose wisely. >> now, i come from a country where free health care for all is a given. so i've always found this kind of an odd debate. that 30 million people more could be covered by this. and there's so much anger about it. it seems alien thing to me. i understand today the way the republicans are now trying to reframe this, having suffered obviously a loss today, is this question of it becoming now a tax, not a penalty. they're saying it's going to cost the american public $500 billion in taxation.

what do you say to this charge now? it's just a new tax? >> well, two things i would say. first of all, i think it was the congressional budget office that that it actually reduces the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars. that it doesn't add costs. it reduces cost. the fact is health care costs across the country are too high. by sharing the exposure, if you will, across all of the population, we will see nationally what we see here at home in massachusetts, that those costs are moderating and going down. so there's going to be a good,

in that respect, in that fiscal or financial respect as well. i think the republicans have tried every which way to sort of misrepresent what health care reform is about. instead of really defending the indefensible. the status quo is not perfectly fine, piers. health is a public good. that's what the president is standing for. and his belief that everyone ought to have access to adequate care. and this is not -- >> let me just jump in there. we're in a curious position. where the public look at this and they go, well, hang on a second, president obama himself before he was president opposed this. mitt romney brought in romney

care in your state. and you yourself say the list of horrors he came up with never materialized. how do you explain to the public that the president didn't agree with it? given that you're trying to attack mitt romney for bringing a version of it in your state which apparently has done a lot of good? >> well, the thing the president didn't agree with is the same thing i was skeptical about. that's the so-called individual mandate. but i get it. i get the idea. it's a basically sort of old-fashioned insurance idea. which is you spread the risk as broadly as possible so you bring down the cost for everybody. it's been an essential part of the success here in massachusetts. i think the president understood that, having seen, of all of the different experiments that are considered and debated in public policy, there's one that's actually been tried. we tried something here in massachusetts. we've tried something nationally. and the supreme court has affirmed the authority of congress to try something. i'm excited about that. >> governor, thank you very much for joining me. >> thanks for having me.

more now on our big story. rick santorum's made no secret of his opposition to obama care. he said today, quote, the outcome is a worst of all scenarios. welcome back, senator, how are you? >> i'm doing well, piers, how are you? >> so eye guess you're foaming at the mouth with blind rage, are you? >> well, how about feeling very, very sad about what this means for our country but frankly very excited that the battle is joined and it will be a battle between now and november and the stakes are very clear. that we now have a system that is going to make every single american dependent in one way another on the federal government for their health care. the reason we separated from you folks over across the pond. because we didn't want to be ruled by people who had that kind of control over us. president obama feels very

comfortable in that elite air he breathes in the white house of making decisions for everybody. average americans are now going to make the decision whether they want that or not. >> just referring to my little place across the pond. of course over there, everybody gets -- entitled to free health care. what is wrong with that in principle? what's wrong with a great country like america -- >> -- gets that health care as you all know. there's a big difference. saying you get health care and actually getting the kind of care that you need when you need it. and we've seen this with socialized medicine not just in the uk but in every other place that has tried it. it is absolutely -- to what the principles of our country are all about.

where government is telling everybody what they can't have and what they can't have and how much they're going to pay for it and you must do it and if you don't the irs is going to track you down. this is not america. this is not what this country -- founded and made it great and we're going to have an election all about that in the fall. >> now, you described romney care in massachusetts as the model for obama care. this is back in february. you said that the base on the very same foundation -- some respects governor romney's plan is even worse. you went on to say, therefore, i'll repeal it. wow, you said, what a big difference. i'm for government running your life. only out of the state capital, not the nation's capital. how awkward is for you the guy who won the republican race now has to take on barack obama, what you sense is a vulnerable area, is the guy that basically inspired the whole plan to start with? >> well here's what i know. i know that if barack obama is re-elected president, obama care will be implemented because he will veto anything that weakens that law. i also know governor romney has given signs he will do whatever he can to weaken the law. so that's the clear choice for me. the issues that i was bringing up during the campaign were really campaign issues.

not issues as to who would happen if governor romney actually got elected president or not. i think he's made it very clear what he wants to accomplish is to repeal obama care. trust me, we will hold him at that word. i believe he will keep it. >> yeah, but here's the problem. you know, he's the guy that came up with the brilliant answer to health care problems in massachusetts. a big state in america. it was called a mandate. moment barack obama comes up with the same idea, he slams it as disgraceful and the end of the world as we know it. you can't really sustain that as a credible position, can you? i salute you, mr. president? >> well, i think what you're seeing is it hasn't worked in massachusetts. health care costs in massachusetts are number one in the country.

they have a series of problems with people who decide to take the tax, in other words, pay the fine, instead of buying insurance, because it's cheaper. it doesn't work. what does work is free people, free markets, bottom-up solutions. that's what makes america great. >> okay, okay, final question. final question. why should we elect him as the president of the united states if he on this fundamental point got it all so horribly wrong? >> well, i would just say this. what he said is they did some things right. they did some things wrong. he learned from those mistakes. i'm using his language. this is something he would oppose. that he would repeal. and let me assure you that republicans from the house and

senate will be chomping at the built to do this and that if we're successful. >> final question. you believe this will re-energize the tea party who have been on the back burner a bit. do you believe this is the kind of issue? >> i don't think there's any question. i mean, i feel frankly very re-energized. i was stunned by the decision. very disappointed in chief justice roberts who just pulled this out of thin air in an attempt to understand the attempt to not to eject himself into the political realm but going and rewriting the health care bill which is what he did in this decision is more than ejecting himself, it was a mistake. and it needs to be corrected. at the voting booth. and i think people will be

energized to do just that. >> senator, always good to talk to you, thank you very much. >> my pleasure, piers, thank you. patrick kennedy's a former congressman. a health care activist. and the son of the late senator ted kennedy. listen to what house minority leader nancy pelosi said today about the senator. >> we called it the great unfinished business of our country, of our society. i knew that when he left us, he would go to heaven and help pass the bill it inspiring one way or another. and now he can rest in peace. joined now by patrick kennedy. how do you think your father would have felt today? >> well, i think he would have been thrilled that not just members of congress have guaranteed health care anymore but that all the constituents who elected him now have health care. my father saw it as simply a matter hypocrisy.

that these people who are criticizing health care take government funded health care themselves. and he just thought it was a matter of fairness. and he thought it was a moral issue. it was about whether we wanted to treat others the way we ourselves would want to be treated. i recall that what made him so passionate about this was when my brother ted had bone cancer and my father and mother had to worry about whether he was going to survive. but they saw other families go through the heartache of not only hoping that their loved one got better but they were worried about being bankrupted in the process. i think that's what rubbed my father so against his sense of compassion and social justice and it's what fueled his effort to fight for this, for his whole

lifetime. he worked with senator hatch. of course he did work with then governor romney in massachusetts. he was always anxious to work across party lines. he really felt this was in the best interest of the nation. as much as it's a polarizing issue right now. governor patrick said earlier. i think everybody will benefit. because you get the efficiencies of having everybody in the system, in which case you can really implement prevention and population-based health care. which today we don't have a health care system. we have a sick care system. which means people only get care when they get sick. that's not really both cost effective. it's certainly not humane. if we -- if we look at the system as it is today. >> were you shocked that justice roberts, chief justice roberts, was the deciding vote today? >> i was shocked that he was just the deciding vote. and that kennedy also didn't join him. it was obviously something that

was a lot of commentary. but process is what it is. at the end of the day, i think it's individual families who get stuck in jobs. who don't want to change jobs because they're worried about losing their health care. or who are really on the margins. who are trying to get health insurance but can't because of a pre-existing condition. all of those families are going

to sleep a little better. knowing that in the future this is one less worry. i understand my former colleague rick santorum before me said, you know, people are going to be, you know, have this worry about government-run this. well, i mean, it was the insurance industry that's unregulated that was running people's health care lives before. and i don't know how many people feel really good about hmos. that as much as they paid for their premiums whenever they needed health care, insurance companies business model was to say no. and i think that's the real issue here. it's not a question of, you know, whether people are going to pay because they're paying already for health premiums. and those health premiums are going up. what this is about is let's get people the coverage that they're paying for. and right now, it's about government stepping in and making sure that insurance companies aren't going to continue to profit off of other people's misfortune. and when they need health care, denying them that health care. because that's how they make a profit. i salute the president for standing up for, really, the largest mass of american people who, you know -- who are worried every day about getting sick because they're worried about it bankrupting them. president obama didn't have to worry about health care. my dad never had to worry about health care. mitt romney doesn't have to worry about health care. it's the average american who's worried because they're worried

about a catastrophic illness putting them in the poor house. i think that's not american. i think the supreme court upheld really the true vision of what is in the best interest of this country today.

>> patrick kennedy, thank you very much indeed.

coming up, three people who know the supreme court better than just about anybody else. what they think happened behind closed doors.

the highest court in the land has spoken. we will continue to implement this law. we'll work together to improve on it. what we won't do, what the country can't afford to do, is refight the political battles two years ago or go back to the way things were. >> president obama's big victory on health care. tom goldstein who's argued more than 2 dozen case before the supreme court. david ripken represented 26 states that challenged obama care. and jonathan turley, professor of law at george washington university. start with you, david ripken.

you must have been shocked. >> i was surprised. i think it's useful to point out the majority of the court actually overturned the statute as written by congress. what they've done is rewrote the statute in two respects and upheld their own product. so it has both good parts. did struck down the legal theories, the constitutional theories theories, that were so dangerous. namely, commerce clause. what unfortunately, the court has done after that is rewrite the individual mandate as a tax. and rewrite the medical provision as somehow giving the states choice. it has a lot of good things for us. certainly not a victory for the obama administration. >> tom goldstein, would you go along with that?

it seemed to me the media were all caught pretty much by surprise. there was a kind of reframing by the supreme court of the entire debate because the obama administration had never really pushed, look, this is going to be a tax. how do you think this is all going to play out now?

>> well, on the bottom line, people felt the statute was in trouble because the oral argument seemed to go badly for the obama administration. so that was the shock. the majority of the supreme court voted to uphold the statute. it's very hard to cast this as a loss for the obama administration. all the critical pieces of the statute are constitutional and upheld. david's absolutely right.

there's some pieces to a tool kit that conservatives can use in later decisions. there are limitations here on excesses by congress that could be significant. but for today and for the next several years, this is just across the board win nearly. >> jonathan turley, as professor of law on the panel tonight,

from the legal perspective purely, do you think the supreme court acted correctly? >> well, i have mixed feelings about it quite frankly. i favor national health care. but i shared the views, the concerns over federalism. i'm a big supporter of federalism. and i've a column coming out in the morning in "usa today" saying that i felt this opinion did great harm to federalism. what happened is chief justice roberts really uplifted federalism. he said that you can't base this law on the commerce clause. and in that sense people like david were vindicated. but then he said you can do all of that under the tax authority. and what that does in my view is it reduce federalism to a type of line. it's very impressive the way chief justice described it. then he showed how you can just get around it. more importantly, when you look at the tax power, it lacks all the limiting principles that was so -- that were so obviously missing for federalism. and so some of us were left scratching our head of, all right, so what's the limiting principle again on the tax issue? he says that the federal government can use this functional approach of the court and can use taxes, even simply to influence the conduct of citizens. that's pretty breathtaking. and so for people who are advocates of federalism, there's

a sense of betrayal here. that this was a friend who may have harped federalism significantly. >> david rivkin. is what we've seen today, led by chief justice roberts, is it a form of judicial activism do you think? hard-earned money. now meet jack. after 40 years, he finally saved enough to enjoy retirement. angie, the waitress at jack's favorite diner, is also enjoying his retirement. with just a little information, she's opened up a credit line, draining the equity in jack's home. unfortunately, millions of americans just like you learn all it may take is a little misplaced information to wreak havoc on your life. this is identity theft, and no one helps stop it better than lifelock. see, ordinary credit monitoring services tell you after your identity has been stolen. they may take up to 60 days to alert you-- too late for jack. lifelock has the most comprehensive identity theft protection available. if mary had lifelock's bank account alerts, she may have been notified in time to help stop it. if jack had lifelock's 24/7 proactive protection, he could have been alerted by phone or e-mail as soon as they noticed

an attack on their network, before it was too late. lifelock has the most comprehensive identity theft protection available, guarding your social security number, your money, your credit, even the equity in your home. while identity theft can't be completely stopped, no one works harder to protect you than lifelock. you even get a $1 million service guarantee. that's security no one can beat. you have so much to protect and nothing to lose when you call lifelock right now and get 60 days of identity theft protection risk free-- that's right, 60 days risk free-- use promo code "not me". order now and get this document shredder to keep sensitive documents out of the wrong hands-- a $29 value, free. [click-click] [♪...]

whatever the politic, today's decision was a victory for people all over this country. whose lives will be more secure because of this law and the supreme court's decision to uphold it. >> our mission is clear. if we want to get rid of obama care, we're going to have to replace president obama. my mission is to make sure we do exactly that. >> supreme court decision was the good news for the president today.

a clear case of you win some, you lose some. attorney general holder was held in contempt by the house over the fast and furious gun running sting. here to talk about it, ryan liza, washington correspondent for "the new yorker." katie pavish, news editor for the town hall. and author of "fast and furious." and charles blo. welcome to you all. you've heard the people tonight giving their views. what is your opinion of who's the winner and who's the winner today? >> i think in situations like this, you probably don't want to get too cute and counterintuitive. one of the candidates running for president wanted the supreme court to uphold this law. one did not. so to me, the clear winner is obama. and his administration. this is obviously the most significant thing he's done in his first 3 1/2 years. and i don't read much into the opinion that even, you know,

conservative legal types should be cheered by -- it seems that whatever the court took away with the commerce clause, they gave back with roberts' interpretation of the taxing authority. and i don't really see any future obama or democratic policies that would be affected or circumscribed by the way the commerce clause was interpreted. i think it's a pretty significant victory for obama. one caveat. the romney campaign just got a jolt of excitement and enthusiasm. he has now defined this election as not just about the economy but about repealing obama care if he's elected. i think that matters for something. the fact that conservatives are rallying behind romney anew is probably a good thing for him. >> yeah, i mean, katie pavlish, there's no doubt that's

happening. the romney campaign said today they raised $2.7 million, maybe as i'm speaking going to $2.9 million, since this happened this morning. clearly, the right is being excited by this. and feels this is going to give them momentum to have a new vote winning strategy based on repealing this. >> i think so. let's not forget the issue of obama care, although it's a win for president obama today in the short term this wasn't a partisan thing. it wasn't just republicans who didn't like obama care. independents especially in swing states wanted the entire bill repealed. so although the supreme court disagrees with them on that, this does give them an al alternative to president obama, saying that romney, on his first day, he said he's going to repeal this. and i don't want to be stuck with president obama in the second term who has give n me a bill i don't want in the first place. let's go back to the 2010 midterm elections. the tea party had a huge role in getting republicans 60 seats. what was the key topic in that

election? it was obama care. so people -- i heard you mention it in the begin of your show. that the tea party's kind of been dormant. well, that's not true. they had a huge role in the wisconsin recall. now that they have a bigger ground game, you can expect to see some of the same results in november. the tea party taking action on this. >> charles blow, it's clearly a good day for barack obama. a day he wasn't expecting. put it into context here. the fact the republicans are raising so much money on the back of this. clearly their base is getting rallied. does that really matter? or is what happened today one of the reasons that so many people voted for barack obama in the first place? >> absolutely. think the last part of your question is exactly the right way. this is a huge win for barack obama. you can't cut this any other way than that. nothing succeeds in america like success. and he has exceeded not only in passing this law but in defending it in court. the republican establishment has

been trying for some time now to try to cast barack obama as delegitimate in some way. this was a big part of that. that he had overreached. that he had gone beyond the law and the constitution. and what today's ruling says is that he has not overreached. that this is well within the confines of the constitution. this is not a president who is delegitimizing the american structure. that he is, in fact, working within the confines of the constitution to improve the country and, in this particular case, by making us healthier as a whole. i think that part keeps getting lost in this. which is that, you know, we can't be a competitive force in the world unless we are better educated and healthier than we are now. the parts that are going the fast rest the part that are most likely not to be covered by health insurance. that is huge for barack obama. both in historical terms and

also in the short term. when we talk about, you know, most of the country doesn't like -- would like to repeal the health care act or don't like it what those polls also include are a lot of people who think the health care act should have actually gone further than it went. they are not necessarily sayg we think it went too far. every time someone mixes those two things up, they're being very disingenuous and playing around with numbers. >> piers, let me just add one thing -- >> charles, let me just hold you all there. take a short break. i can actually see katie's lips pursing in fury. when we come back, i want to ask you, katie, why.

back with me to talk more about health care. katie, i left on a cliffhanger of your pursed lips. what was rocking your boat there? >> well, piers, you mentioned president obama's promises when he ran for office in the first place. he promised not to raise taxes on anyone making more than $250,000 a year. he broke that promise by implementing obama care. we're going to see, as you already mentioned, $500 billion in taxes. the biggest tax hike in american history. 14,000 new irs agents harassing americans because they can't keep their plan that president obama promised they could keep. 11 million americans who have a plan with their employer now

will no longer have a plan. youth unemployment is going to go through the roof because employers aren't going to want to hire short-term workers because they're now required to provide health insurance. so speaking of promises, president obama has broken more of them than he's kept because of this health care ruling. >> okay. ryan lizza, what do you think of that? >> i don't think i could fact check every one of those. the one thing the court said today that puts obama in a little bit of a bind is they have -- they basically said to congress, look, don't play games. if something's going to be a tax, call it a tax. the court has emphasized that this payment that you will now have to make or penalty if you don't have health insurance is indeed a tax. the problem with that politically in terms of the romney campaign coming back very strong on that is we all know romney did the same thing in massachusetts. i was a little surprised

earlier, piers. you had rick santorum on there. he did not hold back in just blasting romney's massachusetts health care law. so it tells you a little bit that this debate is not as clear as, you know, romney might want it to be in the general election. and, frankly, we'll see in the coming weeks if romney keeps coming back to this or not. up till today, republican leaders and romney specifically didn't really want to talk about anything but the economy for some very good reasons. if romney's going to win this race, it's going to be on the economy. and i wonder if the romney campaign stays with this attack on obama's health care law -- >> let's go to -- let me go to charles blow. looks like you're ready to blow appropriately. this is the crux of it, isn't it? the problem for mitt romney -- the governor of massachusetts, which is the state where romney care was brought in, say actually it's been rather good, the state of massachusetts.

probably using it as an example of what a good steward he was when he was there. and what a good idea it was. but he's boxed himself into a corner. with rick santorum. the whole thing didn't really work out. he wished he hadn't really done it. therefore he can attack obama. it's not a very credible position, is it? >> i think mitt romney at this point has a chair in every corner of the room. he's boxed himself into every possible corner and every possible issue. romney care is only one of those issues. and getting back to the people who may, you know, the idea of taxing people because they do not buy into the health care, the people who don't have health insurance are the strongest of obama's supporters. these are the poorest people in america. the large segment of them are a minorities in america. a large segment of them are young people in america. if you look at any poll, these are the people who have the strongest levels of support for barack obama.

so it is so disingenuous for people on the right who are not even in this category, to then throw up their hands in a huff and say, oh, this is a tax. this is a tax they're not even going to have to pay. they're not even subject to this. the very people who all of the republican policies basically take a knock at is ridiculous. >> katie, you are ridiculous apparently. >> i'm ridiculous and disingenuous, right? look, this is a tax. and considering only 53% of people in this country pay a federal income tax and now are going to be paying into this obama care tax, which you just called not a tax. >> who said that -- no, no -- >> you said that. yes, you did. you said it's not a tax. >> don't be putting words into somebody else's mouth. >> you said this was -- >> -- and then you can go and say whatever you want to say. >> -- you said this was not a tax.

the supreme court ruled today it was -- >> who said it wasn't a tax? i never said it wasn't a tax. please -- >> not to mention -- >> the truth will set you free -- >> okay, i will talk to you about the facts if you stop interrupting me. >> no, if you say a fact, you can say that but if you try to put words in my mouth, that's not going to work. >> the supreme court said today also that states can opt out of certain medicaid plans. which cover the people who you're discussing. if you really want to talk about it the supreme court ruled on that. the states don't have to comply with these federal standard of medicaid without the federal government, you know, intimidating them, saying they're no longer going to get coverage. now, going back to point, republicans shouldn't be championing health care and all of this for minorities and poor people -- >> i didn't say they shouldn't be. >> the way you do that is not through the -- >> i didn't say that -- >> stop interrupting meg. >> you're not going to say things that are not true on the air and attribute them to me and expect me to stay silently by -- >> i'm not speaking to you.

i'm speaking to people listening. i'm not talking to you, mr. blow. >> not going to happen. >> back to the point of -- you don't do this through the government. we've already seen our premiums rise which affects young people. it affects minorities. and the people just on the bubble of being able to get health care in the first place can no longer afford it. for this to be called the affordable care act is in your words disingenuous. >> no, you're disingenuous. >> i'm afraid chief justice morgan is going to have to rule at this stage. we've run out of time. i rather like the dynamic we're creating tonight between the various campaigners. i'm sure we'll have you both back maybe to act as some kind of moderator but thank you for a lively debate, all three of you. >> thank you, piers. >> thank you, all, very much. appreciate it. next, you heard what rielle hunter told me last night. she said she thought john edward edwards was temporarily insane. i'll ask top doctors how that sounds to them. [ male announce] this was how my day began.

a little bird told me about a band... ♪ an old man shared some fish stories... ♪ oooh, my turn. ♪ she was in paris, but we talked for hours... everyone else buzzed about the band. there's a wireless mind inside all of us. so, where to next? ♪

i tell mike what i can spend. i do my best to make that work. we're driving safely. and sue saved money on brakes. now that's personal pricing. are you sorry for what you did to her? >> i am sorry. i'm absolutely sorry for my part in the relationship. having an affair, any pain it caused anyone, including elizabeth. >> if she were still alive, would you say to her, i'm sorry? >> absolutely. >> rielle hunter from my interview last night. she was john edwards' mistress. you heard her apologize. but does she mean it? with me is dr. robi ludwig and dr. michelle gollin. let's start with you, dr. michelle. what do you make of the interview? pretty extraordinary, wasn't it? >> yeah, it was.

i think she really didn't like you much and i think part of it is because she is about seduction. and she couldn't really seduce you in that interview. and what i don't get is that, and i think what no one sees, there's no humility. there's no humbleness over having what she's gone through -- >> there was a curious, i thought, reluctant on her part to accept the bleeding obvious, which is, even if you are the single person, starting an affair with a famous married politician, there's still a sense of responsibility that goes with that. you're still having an affair with a married guy. wasn't a moral judgment so much assuredly you must see that you have some responsibility. >> right. >> she didn't want to have any. >> that's narcissism. not wanting to take any spot. not wanting anything unclean. >> they are both narcissists? >> i would say so very much. >> let me bring in robi ludwig. what did you make of it? i think a lot of women have said to me, they found her pretty

disagreeable and unwilling to take responsibility. men were slightly more sympathetic, i guess. >> maybe men are because she's attractive. but clearly, she's very angry. she's defensive. she makes excuses, both for herself and for john edwards. and she doesn't really feel sorry at all for what happened. she's sorry she's misunderstood. she's sorry that she that is unpopular. and she's angry about it. she doesn't believe that what she did was wrong because it was something good, it led to something good. and that's why people don't like her, because she isn't taking responsibility for the pain that she caused. it's not believable, but she's obvious about what she is. >> let's play a clip. this is one of the more remarkable moments last night, when she was discussing birth control. let's watch this. >> whose idea was it not to use birth control? >> we are both adults. we didn't use birth control. >> why?

>> we were in love. >> what's that got to do with it? guy is going to be president. or he wants to be. seems extraordinary, these little details. what were you both thinking? >> we weren't. >> at all. >> clearly. >> you know, i -- >> i found that breathtaking. the idea that the explanation -- if the explanation had been, we were both teenagers, you kind of believe it. the fact is, the excuse is, we're adults -- >> i have to tell you, i'm a relationship expert, i deal with parents and affairs, a lot of affairs within couples. you hit it on the head. it -- that was an immature, young girl. and that's also what john edwards was, he was an immature young adolescent man in that affair. >> i completely agree. >> agree with that? >> absolutely agree.

and i will question whether she was in love or even john edwards was in love. they were in lust and they were selfish. they were acting like teenagers because they were mentally teenagers. and here is another thought. perhaps she liked the idea of getting pregnant. she wanted something that basically made the statement that their relationship was real and valid. she might have liked the idea on some level. >> one of the things that certainly came through is, i've been informed as a matter of fact that the reason that they split up in the last few days was the kids of john edwards, his older daughter, in her 30s, they had no idea about half of the affairs that were going to be revealed in this book, casting new aspersions on their father, which is a shocking thing to do, actually, given there were three children there, grieving their mother. don't you think? >> yes, but what about john edwards not coming all the way clean to his kids?

because, you know what? that's the problem with a narcissist. they think they can control it. she thinks she can control the media. >> yeah, i think -- >> you don't feed the beast a little bit at a time. >> it was an extraordinary encounter. thank you both very much. appreciate your expert view. kind of confirms my amateur view, so, that's always a relief. thank you both. coming next, only in america has the perfect way to prevent a spouse from cheating. so, rielle, if you are watching, this one's for you.

for tonight's only in america, a sure fire way to stay faithful. more than 20% of all married american men will commit adultery. and also we saw with my

interview with rielle hunter last night, it can have devastating consequences, not least for one, sanity. >> i don't think he was in his right mind when he did that. he was all over the place. he was temporarily insane. >> adultery cost edwards hiss presidential run, his marriage, his reputation, very nearly his liberty. didn't play out that well for miss hunter, either. how do you think your pen lick perception is right now? >> destroyer, villain, evil. basher. all of that. >> but help is here with the cunning new device. the anti-cheating ring. it's a normal band, except there's an engraving on the inside that when it is slipped on leaves an imprint. the imprint reads simply, "i'm married." if the guy takes off the ring, his wedding finger won't be able to keep th