He really wanted to like Richardson. He likes governors and felt Richardson might be the best candidate to bring over some of the moderate Republicans.

But every time he has seen one of the debates or heard about one of the gaffes, he has edged closer to the conclusion that Richardson is not ready to handle the 24/7 scrutiny of a lengthy campaign.

My husband is still undecided, but he is now leaning against Richardson.

mostly a free ride from the media--amazing considering he's at double digits in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Nothing about Wen Ho Lee, for example. And the other candidates have left him alone, choosing not to point out that a balanced budget amendment, which he supports, is a pretty kooky idea.

All that will change if he rises in the polls, which means he do worse the better he does.

I agree with you.  I've been supporting Richardson, Obama and Edwards.  I hope Richardson will be Secretary of State and have said that often.  He has a lot of foreign policy experience.  

I'm a retired psychotherapist and have enough experience to know that sexual orientation is biological.  If it were chosen, there are a lot of preadolescents who would choose to be heterosexual, I believe, because when one is young it is very difficult to live in the social context we've created for males and females.

That is changing, thank goodness.  Bill Richardson should be negotiating on behalf of the US wherever he is needed.  He will be a breath of fresh air after Condolessa.

The choice vs biological argument is so basic to understanding the politics of just about all of the issues discussed at the forum.

The conservative arguments against public school sex ed, anti-discrimination/hate laws, etc always invoke 'lifestyle choice'.

The accusation of wanting 'special privileges' of marriage equality is rooted in the conservative belief that homosexuality is a choice.

I thought the question was offered up as a softball and was quite amazed with Richardson's lack of awareness.

Within the past week I advocated selecting Richardson as the VP.

With his choice comment I retract the endorsement completely and irrevocably.  Richardson clearly understands nothing about the science or the politics.  That is a level of out-of-touchness I cannot accept.  

That said, if it was true that being gay was a choice, I fail to see why that would make it OK to discriminate.  The underlying premise is that something is wrong with being gay than only biology makes acceptable.  I don't buy that.

the only thing decided so far in th8s primary campaign is that B Richardson will not be selected as a VEEP a shame because he could help in some southwest battlegrounds. People say Obama isn't experienced but how can Richardson make these kind of mistakes? a democratic dog catcher would know better.

I don't really know why he's still running. There are so many rumors about him that he's got to know he'll get hit hard if he's the nominee. Plus, he always looks genuinely baffled at most of the debates. He's the Tommy Thompson of the Democratic field.

Richardson's unawareness of facts that have appeared on the cover of Scientific American show he is not ready for prime time. An American President in the 21'st Century needs to deal with many Scientific subjects, the origin of homosexuality, global warming, peak oil, frankenfood, stem cell research,etc. He need not be a scientist or engineer, but he should the basic knowledge of a well-read layman.

Perhaps I'm spoiled by the intellect of Bill Clinton.

Throughout the campaign, I think that Richardson has performed marginally better than Gravel, though not as well as Kucinich.

Given this fact, how the hell has he managed to acquire his exceptional resume?

richardson haseverything could ask for...he's not onlythe only governor on the field,which is a huge plus, but he's a rara governor with foreign policy experience.

It was disheartening to learn that Richardson messed this up so badly. I supported him but we already have a president who can't keep himself out of trouble. We don't need another one. Very sad, because he's definitely one of the good guys.

I do agree he does not seem  ready for prime time.

But I do find something that rings true in the statement "But I'm not a scientist, and the point I was trying to make is that no matter how it happens, we are all equal and should be treated that way under the law."

The whole argument of whether homosexuality is a "choice" or not seems to sort of assume that if it is a choice, that would somehow make it more wrong, but it is ok because homosexuals "can't help it". But why? If it is a choice, all the more reason that it should be accepted and given the same rights and privileges as heterosexuality. Nobody is being harmed whether or not it is a choice or not. It seems to me that arguing over whether or not it is a choice is heavily buying into an unnecessary premise of the right.

Anyway, the fact that Richardson was not familiar with the issue shows he is indeed out of touch with the LGBT community, and not ready for prime time.

What isn't biological?  What isn't a choice?

You choose to have sex with who you choose to have sex with.  A woman can choose to have sex with another woman, and it doesn't mean that she's gay...and the sexual act was still biological.

I'm sick of people trying oversimplify everything.

Every "choice" that people make isn't a good choice, and everything that people do that they couldn't help, meaning they didn't make a "choice," isn't good.

So, what difference doesn't it make whether it's biological or a choice?

Even more telling is that as Melissa Etheridge and Margaret Carlson gave him opportunities to recover, he was not aware enough to realize that he had made a mistake and to clarify his position. The audience groaned as he was speaking and he was not able to read the audience reaction and know that he need to change course?

And the audience was a friendly audience that was grateful that the candidates were willing to speak to them.

I am sure that Richardson is a good man, but we need someone more on the ball for the Democratic nominee.

There were a number of things that made Richardson intriguing to me early on. Some of those remain, but you're right, he's just not a national politician. There are more important things at stake.

I'm ready for him, Biden, and Gravel to drop out. None seem able to contend credibly in a debate. I know some Biden fans will disagree, but he's made some gaffes recently and I don't think he seriously is after the nomination.

The others seem to either be real contenders, or like Kucinich have a position that they fervently want to see voiced and find no one else willing to voice it.

It's sad about Richardson, because his resume is so great, but he is awful on TV and in the debates sometimes gives those embarrassing "deer in the headlights" responses.

It seems pretty obvious that no one is born a homosexual. However, that doesn't mean that people choose to be that way either. I would say the best answer to the question would be both.

Seems like between the likely veep candidates--Richardson, Biden and Dodd--Dodd is the only one who doesn't stick his foot in his mouth.

       With all the very important issues to deal with in this campaign, I can't believe people are focussing on this non-issue.
Whether homosexuality is biological or a choice isn't really
relevant.  Richardson has it right - this is a human rights issue,
and homosexuals are entitled, at the very least, to civil unions
and full rights.

      But since we are on the subject of gaffes, why don't we
talk about Hillary.  In an early debate, she said she would pass
health care reform by the end of her 2nd term(why so late?).
But in a later debate, she says she would pass it sooner - why
the change?  

      She was also asked a question about whether we are safer
now than before 9/11/01, and she answered "yes".  But that
seems ridiculous considering how much blood and treasure we
have spent in Iraq, and how that illegal and immoral invasion
has cost us the support of so much of the muslim world.

      When she chastised Obama during another debate about
his willingness to talk to various "bad leaders", she did it with
a contempt that seemed to suggest any change with the current
way we conduct diplomacy is out of the question.  I got the
feeling she was channeling Lieberman and the DLC and if she is
elected, it will be business as usual with regard to foreign
policy.

      And then when Obama hit back with "we don't need Bush-
Cheney lite", she responded with "whatever happened to the
politics of hope?"  She sounded like a bully who threw a punch
and then was hit very hard in return saying "why are you so mean?"

      And the big question is why is the media not questioning
her on any of this?  Why does she seem to be getting a free
pass no matter what she says and how ridiculous it may be?
It's probably because she has locked up so much of the
big-money corporate support.  None of what she says probably
matters, since she doesn't mean much if any of it; like her
husband Bill in '92, she is saying what her team thinks is
necessary to win, and then she'll govern in any way she chooses
once elected.

      So why don't we focus on real issues and genuiness
instead of trivialities?  We can't afford more years of business
as usual.

It's not a choice.  Who in the world would choose to be hated and descriminated against and bullied and robbed of their rights.  Some guys do sleep with both sexes, they are bisexuals and it is a real thing- maybe to them and straight people, it appears like a choice- but every homosexual I've ever met has never said it was choice unless they were brainwashed by religious nuts.

Richardson is terrible in these debates- I am like a lot of others and wonder how he managed to get all the jobs and experience he has- he doesn't exude any of that listening to him.

"But in general terms, focusing on the record is something we should do more instead of trying to divine what's in the souls of candidates. There are reasons for doing the latter, as past performance is no guarantee of future returns, but ultimately it doesn't really matter what politicians think about things deep in their hearts."

I couldn't disagree with you more.  Most of the time, in fact, character is just about the only thing that does matter with politicians.  If a political leader managed to accomplish something positive in his past, but did so only because it was advantageous for him at the time, that is no evidence he'll be with you in the future.  

The weight and power of the forces aligned against progress are such that they can only be defeated by an excess of principle and moral courage.  Seriously.  Any other motivation will be snuffed out.  A man (or woman) must believe in what's right so strongly that they're willing to suffer for that belief.  

I'm not joking.  I'm sick of Democrats especially for focusing on who has the best five-point plan, who throws out the most red meat to their supporters.  These things don't make you an effective leader.  Character does.  Principle does.  

Richardson was flat wrong on the question of choice and sexual orientation.  As a supporter of Richardson, I really disappointed.  

At the same time, Richardson recanted what he said soon after the debate.  He also described what was going through his mind in this interview by the Advocate:  http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ekti d47982.asp

In the end, I judge candidates on their records.  In Congress, Richardson voted against the Pentagon's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, and will reverse it when President.  In New Mexico, a state evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, Richardson

* expanded anti-discrimination laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

• provided state health insurance for domestic partnerships,
  
• signed into law the state's first hate crimes legislation for crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity,
  
• transformed health services in the state for AIDS patients.

If a few state senators hadn't blocked it, New Mexico would have a Domestic Partner Rights Act.  Richardson fought hard for the legislation earlier this year.  Have any of the other Presidential candidates called on their state legislatures and governors to enact Domestic Partners statutes?

Recently, the Bay Area Reporter, the leading LGBT paper for San Francisco, profiled Richardson noting:

B.A.R. publisher Thomas E. Horn, who was born and raised in New Mexico and whose family has been involved in the state's politics - an uncle served as a state legislator and then the state's Democratic Party chair in the 1950s and 1960s - first met Richardson when he served as a congressman.

"I really think he is the most qualified Democrat in the race for president," Horn wrote in an e-mail. "His track record is exceptional. He's done a fine job as governor ... and was re-elected with around 70 percent of the vote."

Horn, who said he expects to make an endorsement in the primary but has yet to back a candidate, said winning the southwest will be key to the Democrats taking back the White House. Not only does he see Richardson having an advantage in the West, but Horn also praised his gay rights track record.

"If a Democrat carries New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada, we don't need Ohio or Florida to win. Richardson is very popular throughout the southwest and stands the best chance of being able to do that," wrote Horn. "His record of LGBT issues has always been stellar."

http://www.democracyfornewmexico.com/dem ocracy_for_new_mexico/2007/08/bill-richa rdson.html

That is a link to comments on Richardson by members of the GLBT community from New Mexico. They know him best.  One stated:

"After 14 years of trying in NM to pass Non discrimination in the workplace, he helped us get it, and kept Gender Identity in the bill when many legislators were backing away from that language! The same with Hate Crimes. Executive Order granting DP benefits to state employees, and working hard to keep a DOMA off the books here. The biggest thing to know about our Governor, that has been my experience is that in the GLBT community he has never made a promise he didn't keep, or bust his ass trying!"