I watched the Logo forum last night and was also able to attend Bill Richardson's break out forum at Yearlykos. I am now starting to really wonder about Bill Richardson's ability to be president.
Of course, the low light of the whole forum was Bill Richardson explaining that homosexuality is a choice. While his answer was just horrible, the important thing for this diary is that I noticed this glimmer of a deer-in-the-head-lights look from Richardson before he answered that question. I don't know if this look comes from him realizing "uh-oh this is a bad question for me" or "um I have no idea what the answer to this question is" but when he gets that look, the answer that follows can be trouble for him.
Melissa Etheredge and Margaret Carlson gave him two more chances to clarify or backtrack and his answers just made things worse. I haven't seen how his campaign has tried to spin his answer, but as they are saying on MSNBC this morning, his answer to that question has been the single most "cringe worthy" moment of the whole Democratic primary campaign to date.
Unfortunately, I also saw that look a couple times in the breakout session at Yearlykos. When it happened there, his answer was invariably "this is what I would do", even if the question wasn't necessarily asking how he would do something.
I'll be interested to see how Richardson's campaign goes into damage control mode on his gaffe last night (his answer about why he used a gay slur on Imus was not all that convincing either) and whether he can attract any GLBT voters going forward.
I thought Richardson had some momentum going for him but if his campaign folds early or he ultimately does not win the nomination, last night's performance will probably prove to be his Waterloo (and may knock him out of VP consideration).