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.

10. Kathy Griffin

OK, I don’t watch My Life on the D-List, or really find Griffin all that amusing. But some people have to like her as she hosted the technical Emmys this year, which led Neil Patrick Harris to the hosting gig. Besides, she couldn’t be any less funny than Jimmy Fallon, could she? I don’t see how that is physically possible.

9. Bob Costas

Let’s be honest: outside of football coverage, Bob Costas doesn’t get to do a whole lot on NBC, except when the Olympics come around. If Costas is skilled at one thing, however, it’s interviewing people. Late night television is missing a good interviewer, and has since Tom Snyder left the air almost a decade ago. Costas could bring intelligence and class back to late night, and would be perfect counter-programming to the rest of late night television.

8. Bill Hader

If you are going to chose someone from SNL to take over late night hosting, why not choose one that was actually funny on the program? Not one fits the bill better than Hader, who is not only the most constant funny-bringers on SNL, but clearly knows humor through and through. Films that feature Hader are better than had they not featured him, which isn’t something you can say universally about very many people, and the films he chooses are usually quite funny to begin with. The only disadvantage to casting Hader is he would not be nearly as available to work on these films, and SNL would lose one of the only really funny and talented people on the program.

7. Zachary Levi

On “Chuck,” Levi balances action, drama and comedy with grace and humor becoming one of the funniest–and most likeable–characters on television. Imagine if he could focus on comedy what he could become. While it’s important for a talk show host to be likeable–which Levi is undeniably–he also has an everyman attitude and manages to be attractive without being too attractive. If “Chuck” should eventually end its run, you can bet NBC will be trying everything to keep Levi on the network, and rightfully so. He can sell a joke with one look, which is a rare gift.

6. Keith Olbermann

Anyone who remembers Olbermann’s stint on ESPN knows that the man can be funny. A late night talk show would allow him to get looser than he can on MSNBC, while allowing him to have a greater impact. Think about how much Olbermann tried to derail McCain’s campaign, then consider the damage David Letterman did. Plus maybe, just maybe, Olbermann could try a lighter mood on the program. It would also allow him an outlet where he could interview someone who didn’t agree with him and have it be okay.

5. Rainn Wilson

This one was a gimme. Wilson’s unique brand of snark, sarcasm, wit and dimwit is perfect for late night television. He has shown he is capable of playing both the fool and the egomanic of the years and those are the only two personalities for late night hosts that have existed (outside of Carson, of course). Wilson’s popularity–he’s among the most popular actors on The Office–could translate to late night, and Wilson could interview a wide variety of subjects without seeming too above or below them.

4. Jeff Goldblum

Uniqueness is a valued asset in late night television. Letterman and O’Brien thrived on that for years, and one of the problems O’Brien has faced moving to The Tonight Show is how to stay unique while maintaining Leno’s audience. Jeff Goldblum is unique. He’s also mainstream, starring in two of the biggest movies of the 1990s. Since he has fallen to doing drama on a USA Network program, no reason he can’t do a late night television show. Hell, curious viewers would probably turn the first few weeks into a massive hit.

3. Greg Grunberg

“Heroes” best days seem to be behind, what with Bryan Fuller’s second departure, so when the program does eventually end, NBC should look to keep on Grunberg in some other capacity. While he doesn’t have the name recognition that some of the rest of the list has, Grunberg (or ‘Grunny’, to his fans), is a charming, funny, well connected individual with one of the best celebrity twitter feeds around. Combining him with a set of quality comedy writers could do wonders, and his laid back and entrepreneurial nature makes him a perfect fit for late night television.

2. Bruce Campbell

…he’s Bruce Campbell. What can’t he do? While the show may not be a hit, it would have a massive cult following and would secure the 18-35 male demo with ease.

1. James Roday

James Roday does it all on “Psych”: he writes, he produces, he acts and even directs on the program, which is a hit for the cable network USA. Roday is also known to improvise on the set and his improvisations are one of the reasons–if not the reason–for the shows great success. His off-the-wall observations, pop culture references and nicknames show a mind always at work, and, if the outtakes are any indication, the man is almost always on. Sure, he needs a sidekick and someone to play off of to make his schtick really work, but he’s one of the most likeable men in television, and that’s one of the most important things to begin with. Jimmy Fallon may have gotten (most) of the cast of Saved by the Bell back together, but Roday would get the cast of something far greater–like Airwolf or Perfect Strangers–back together.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

[via Gawker]