2. It's a shame no-one asked him about his opinions on Russia's recent actions. I know it isn't anything to do with the revelations he exposed, but seeking asylum in Russia makes him part of the broader political game.
I'm as politically cynical as just about anyone I know. I have no faith in either party. Ron Paul was the only remotely interesting candidate in the primaries, but after he lost I couldn't care less about the Obama vs Romney election. Both are empty suits beholden to the highest bidder. Sure, the parties are great at focusing on polarizing issues like abortion and distribution of wealth, but neither one apparently gives a fuck about reforming the rot at the core (e.g. campaign financing, congress beholden to corporate interest, defense spending, moral hazard post bailouts, cost of college skyrocketing along with student aid keeping pace, etc).
So yes, I'm a doom and gloom kind of guy who sees no clear way out of the mess that the US is in. I'm not patriotic, though I'm still grateful to be a US citizen. I scoffed at the Tea Party's obsession with the US Constitution since I saw very little evidence that they really understood what it's all about. If I saw any politician giving an interview with a US Constitution as the backdrop, I'd roll my eyes and wonder what they were trying to sell me.
BUT, Snowden is the best example that I know of as a person that really values the plan for the US as laid out by the Constitution and who saw first hand an insidious threat to ignoring those principles without the public even being aware. If there's anyone who has earned the right to call himself a true patriot and defender of the Constitution, it's Edward Snowden. So the backdrop may not be such an odd choice given that perspective, IMO.
This is naïve at best. At most, he's shown some interest in a tiny portion of the Constitution but his alignment with Russia and his appeal to dictatorships for asylum shows he doesn't value freedom of speech and other values enshrined in the Constitution.
And the appeals for asylum to non-dictatorships (such as most EU countries) fell on deaf ears - nevermind that asylum in "allied" countries probably isn't safe in the first place. Look at Germany: Every spot within ~150 miles from a US controlled military base or embassy, and known to be used as hub for that extra-legal rendition program (where the German government looked the other way even when the US went after a German citizen).
After the US and UK, such countries are certainly the last place I'd try to hide from the US administration if I had to suspect that they're really eager to get me.
He should also plan his route so that he doesn't cross US-allied airspace - see the grounding of the Bolivian president's plane in Europe over suspicions that Snowden might be a passenger.
With all that, we're not talking about alignment but about a lack of options.
I'm sorry if this is overly sarcastic but I do not know what other kind of answer you'd expect. The basis of your question is seems not to be based in reality you might as well ask why the founding fathers didn't believe laws applied to them.
It was a very interesting interview. Combined with the Aaron Schwartz documentary and a cross to Assange it's been quite an intense couple of days!
Regardless of whether it might reveal either a gap between his stance and his hosts or between him and US opinion, it just isn't relevant. Might as well ask him about his stance on drug policy, nuclear energy or GMO food.
The Saul Goodman backdrop, though -- pretty funny as a tongue in cheek reference, I guess, pretty cheesy otherwise.