Watch the full interview (just shy of 20 minutes:

)

While we’d like to claim her the winner of this debate, moments like below show Maddow clearly losing her temper while “Mr. Reformed” remains in an irritatingly stoic position. She’s attempting to make a point

Perhaps the flaw in the conversation, and its victor, is the angle in which the story was approached. It was a two-issue debate focusing both on homosexuality as a myth and supporting evidence for that myth being used to kill gays. While related, the two are each large enough battles to devote entire shows to, let alone a 20-minute combined segment.

Maddow’s weakness is this merging of arguments. She (should have) wanted to talk about Uganda, but she ended up confronting the bullshit claims out of clear personal resent. And rightfully so, but that’s what makes this segment fail. Watch as it’s spun: first as a promotion for his organization, then second as a disclaimer against the use of his material for the persecution of gays. Her argument is lost in a sea of, “We’ll I didn’t mean to …”

We’re left in awe of what a complete fuckup this guy is, not in awe of Maddow’s take-down of said fuckup. While negative, he still retains the focus.

As mythical as the detached observer principle of journalism became this decade, this is one example of why it needs to exist. Maddow’s personal attachment to the story, as that of an openly gay woman, causes her more harm then good. Talking points become personal and it interferes with the ability to take charge of the debate.

While some find him repulsive in his Murrow-esque behavior, Maddow’s time-slot neighbor, Keith Olbermann, would have handled this debate better. Anyone doubting his thoughts on the issue need only turn to his Prop 8 special commentary around this time last year. He made the argument personal to his viewers without having the direct personal interest himself. That’s something Maddow, and frankly much of her audience, can’t claim.

It’s not that Maddow failed. She’s didn’t. That’s impossible to do when you’re up against a man practicing psycho-babble. The shame is that she couldn’t leverage the insanity of his argument against gays to make him admit that – intended or not -  it’s ultimately leading to their genocide.