Dana Rudolph

Barack Obama, Cover Boy

Filed By Dana Rudolph | August 10, 2009 5:30 PM | comments

Filed in: Media, The Movement
Tags: Barack Obama, esther armah, jon barrett, Michael Musto, president obama, The Advocate

The Advocate's current issue features a cover image of President Obama with the words: "Nope? He was our greatest hope, but he has yet to deliver."

At GRITtv with Laura Flanders, journalists Michael Musto and Esther Armah talk about the cover and Obama's stance on LGBT rights thus far:

After the jump, hear Advocate Editor-in-Chief Jon Barrett give his thoughts on Obama and the cover (along with previews of other articles from the current issue).


Recent Entries Filed under The Movement:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


I accept the abuse that will rain down upon my head for making this comment, but, well, that is the life of a woman of transsexual history in this world.

Why, in any post using the term LGBT, is there no mention of anything other than gay and lesbian rights?

Why is there no mention of a trans-inclusive ENDA, or any other ENDA?

Or a mention of a trans-inclusive hate crime law?

Michael Musto referred to Miss California.

In a recent humorous comment on the Keith Olbermann show on MSNBC, Musto made a truly offensive reference to Miss California as a transsexual woman; his reference was along the lines of cutting off things.

Were any trans person to make a comparable reference to someone as a gay person--well, there is no surgical equivalent, to be sure, but something I suspect could be improvised--they would no longer be admitted to polite company.

I wait for Musto to be called on this--as I will be called on this.

Excuse me, but Obama is a tad busy right now, with two wars, a tanking economy, and a healthcare struggle. And why should he help people who shoot themselves in the foots at every opportunity? We threw away an easy victory on domestic partnership. Now we debating if we'll continue demanding marraige in hick California, when the polls have shown consistently for ten years that the public are selfish about marraige. I guess the party in DC has been canceled, which is good. But I don't expect the community to help in the healthcare fight any time soon, even though medical care is crucial for many of us.
Why you expect any politician to help us when we can't even read a poll is beyond my comprehension. We also can't be bothered with strategizing. But Obama must tame the Universe and deliver in three seconds flat or face an endless blast of outrage. Please. My bunions are in turmoil.

The president himself said we need to push him on LGBT issues. The Advocate Cover did have a "?" and the inside articles were both thoughtful and encouraged us to make the change we need, another Obama-backed idea.
Am I disappointed in Obama, yes (and not just on LGBT issues). Should we voice our opposition? Definitely, without speaking out we allow non-action.

You know Our opponents are leaving there states and going to other areas like a shadow behind us. Perhaps we need to do the same. and send trail blazers of our own to other states to win small victories elsewhere.

It is as though we are not learning from our opponents strategies. Wisdom comes from experience. Lets not waist our resources in areas where there is not change.

Or we need to make sure the legal writing in our bills Matches with the fears of the oppressor to give them some comfort and take sure steps to the ultimate goal, Equality for all.

Teaching their precious little ones in school brings them fear. "Oh my gawd bill will become a homo if its excepted"

These people are taught we are recruiting there young. I used to be one of them that was thought this way.. This started in churches in the early 90s to my recollection. So the education of children is matching their fears of what they were taught in the box.. Now they are being taught that we are looking to infiltrate there churches for marriage. Which goes against their beliefs. So protect there precious box's and exempt them in our wording. We do not want to be where we are not wanted anyways. What sort of happy place is that... Although public spaces are another story. Government Unions is another story..We are looking to have our rights. Lets go after what is attainable. Lets change the wording that all marriages are to be called unions unless performed by a church... and we have churches too.

So if it's all the same and the same rights are given to us and our opponents I would be happy. Hey separate is not equal. So lets change the word marriage to union for all. Lets leave the word marriage as a union of two people performed by a clergy in a church. simple to the point.

I think we have a lot on our plates already. Now lets eat.

Andrew Conte | August 12, 2009 2:07 PM

Wilberforce,,,,Was Obama "too busy" to invite anti-gay Rick Warren as the honored guest to give invocation at inaugural?