• Gay BlogAds

  • Gay News Watch

  • Chris Tweets

  • « A wretched ruling that also happens to be right | Main | The hypocrisy of 'religious freedom' »

    May 27, 2009

    MSNBC's Anderson Cooper in drag?

    Posted by: Chris

    You can get CNN and Fox News in Brazil, but not so MSNBC, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this: Does Rachel Maddow ever acknowledge on-air that she's gay, even when discussing stories about marriage and other gay rights issues?

    I couldn't help but be struck by Maddow's take last night on the Prop 8 ruling and the protests that followed. She discusses the events with her usual bright-and-funny-if-a-bit-too-smug-and-predictable manner, then winds up by sharing that she's interested in a rally this Saturday in Fresno because she's a big geography geek:

    No mention of any interest in same-sex marriage because she's a Sappho-lover herself.

    It's unfair to compare Maddow directly with CNN's resident closet-case, Anderson Cooper, because Maddow has been open for years about being gay, at least in personal interviews. But isn't it fair to expect that such a proudly liberal talking head find an appropriately cheeky way to fill-in all her viewers about her direct connection to gay rights?

    Like I said, maybe I've missed it and correct me if I'm wrong,



    TrackBack URL for this entry:


    1. Steven on May 27, 2009 9:43:58 PM:

      The only way to accomplish that would be to inform her viewers of her orientation every single time she commented on an LGBT-related piece. That would be cumbersome, ridiculous, and irritating for all.

      Other commentators who talk on race, immigration, or tax issues don't seem to be expected to disclose their genealogical tree, family's history of coming to the US, or what tax bracket they belong to. I don't think her disclosing her sexuality, especially if she's open and on record elsewhere, is a fair expectation at all.

    1. Jim on May 28, 2009 12:07:13 AM:

      Dude, lighten up. She's out and everyone knows it.

    1. Ron on May 28, 2009 12:45:37 AM:

      I'm afraid you got it wrong about Rachel. She's been out front on many occasions about herself. You might want to cut her, of all people, some slack!

    1. Double T on May 28, 2009 2:04:53 AM:

      Glad you're back.
      Yes, she's out on the air.

    1. Citizen Crain on May 28, 2009 7:49:47 AM:

      I take your point, Steven, but there's a big difference between expecting her to out herself on every single story about gay rights and expecting her to reference it at least once in a while -- or even once -- when discussing the issue.

      Jim, I disagree with you, dude. We gay folk sometimes assume everyone knows these things, and her show is seen by more than 1 million viewers, a very very small percentage of whom will have read the personal profiles that have been written about her that include discussion of her sexual orientation.

      Thanks for the welcome back, TT. Anyone got an actual example of how/when she did it, as opposed to a generalized recollection? I still have my doubts.

    1. Tim C on May 28, 2009 11:41:55 AM:

      Hey, no fair on that headline. I raced to the story, hoping to see our big CNN girl in a dress.

    1. Larry on May 28, 2009 6:30:05 PM:


      Here's a link for a commentary of Rachel's aired from the "Air America" studio that is a clear declaration of her
      sexual orientation.


      Though this is not from her MSNBC show, I think many of us are so aware of her sexuality that we
      "hear" it in her consistently favorable comments and interviews of others. She has been doing great work of late on the issue of gays in the military and particularly with Lt. Choi, whom she has so prominently featured on her show.

      Lt. Choi, of course, has been picked up by CNN for extensive coverage the past several days.

      Welcome back after your long absence!!

    1. Winston Johnson, Atlanta on May 28, 2009 10:56:31 PM:

      Chris, I have watched Rachel almost nightly since the beginning of her show on MSNBC. I cannot give specifics but on a number of occasions she has mentioned her partner and she has also referenced "Susan and I" in a way that clearly indicates that she is a lesbian. I have also heard her do self deprecating
      "butch" jokes.

    1. Double T on May 29, 2009 2:52:23 AM:

      You are willing to give Larry Craig the benefit of the doubt about whether or not he was having toliet sex, but not Rachel Maddow. Ok


    1. Jeff on May 29, 2009 6:42:59 PM:

      Anderson Cooper might be bi, in which case he could marry a woman and if he does and stays monogomous, what point is there in mentioning that he is bi?

    1. jamesnimmo on May 30, 2009 9:30:51 PM:

      One of the major newspapers had a story on Maddow not too long ago. I think anyone who's interested in her orientation probably knows it by now. I watch her because she's gay and makes no bones about it. She's there to deliver a selection of news stories not to MC a talk show like Larry King or the View.

    1. Hawyer on May 31, 2009 11:10:59 AM:

      Come-on Chris --- really now with that Ann B. Davis hairdo, could her dykeism escape any sentient viewer.

      PS - I'm a huge devotee of Rachel. Aside from being the smartest person on earth, she's handles her sexuality just right. Any fan of hers over the long haul totally gets her self deprecating down-to-earth demeanor and appreciates her no-nonsense affinity to the "community" whenever it's called for.

      As far as Mr. AC360 is concerned (aside from the fact that he's really not that smart), he really irritates me with his faux androgynous and supercilious demeanor. Rumor has it that CNN forbids him from discussing his queerness on-air, but I think that's just AC apologists covering for him.

      AC's central problem is that he's got his mother's Gloria Vanderbilt jeans zipped too tight on his ass.

    1. adamblast on Jun 2, 2009 3:06:53 PM:

      Yes, Chris, you're wrong, tho it's an easy mistake to make. She doesn't reference it personally very often, maybe a handful of times since the show began. She seemed more "at home" being an out lesbian when she was visiting the View, in fact. On her show I'd say her lesbianism is more likely to be mentioned randomly and casually--sometimes by herself, sometimes by her guests--than in conjunction with any particular stories or issues affecting gay rights.

      Given the way she revels in her geekiness and is actually prone to personalizing many other topics, it's fair to say she's at least a bit reticent and awkward on the issue, but *not* that she's glass-closeting.

      By the way (as another who can't access MSNBC via the TV) both her show and Olbermann's are available in complete form every night via the direct "MSNBC Podcasts" page, if that's accessible to you.

    1. suzanne on Oct 3, 2009 1:43:31 AM:

      I am shocked about Letterman's admission that he had sex with several women who have "worked for me." The thought of David Letterman having sex with anyone including a woman is disturbing enough. I'm having trouble finding anything that could have possibly been consensual about these relationships. Consensual rape maybe because if I say "no" I may lose my job. Just how many victims were there?

    1. cheap ugg boots on Nov 21, 2010 9:31:13 PM:

      I'd have to second that comment. "Justifiably proud" would require justification, and there is none. A secular Iraq under Hussein was absolutely enlightened by comparison for both women and gay people. With theocracy (for that's what it amounts to, Sharia law and whatnot), women have been ground down, and gays have been slaughtered. There is nothing for either Bush or Obama to be proud about the state of women's lives over there.

    1. cheap ugg boots on Nov 29, 2010 6:42:04 AM:

      While many of us hope the marriage issue will be an educational opportunity, history says that without the education any victory could be worthless in reality.

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    © Citizen Crain - All Rights Reserved | Design by E.Webscapes Design Studio | Powered by: TypePad