Divine decrees shaped the primary calendar -- but did God also decide the 2000 election?

• God loves Iowa

The development I have been most surprised by over the past months has been Bill Richardson's surge in Iowa and in New Hampshire. When I see him in a debate, he seems unsure of himself, an awkward speaker who makes way too many mistakes. And whenever Richardson is covered, it seems to be because he's put his foot in his mouth - again. There was the gay incident. Oh and then there was the second gay incident. And now, this. Richardson told a crowd at the Northwest Iowa Labor Council Picnic on Monday that:

"Iowa, for good reason, for constitutional reasons, for reasons related to the Lord, should be the first caucus and primary. And I want you to know who was the first candidate to sign a pledge not to campaign anywhere if they got ahead of Iowa. It was Bill Richardson."

I understand that Richardson is desperate for a good showing in Iowa, but saying that God wants Iowa to go first...? And for that matter, it also is absurd to suggest that the US Constitution says anything about the order in which states should hold primary contests. In any case, the Iowa crowd does not seem to have reacted well to this ridiculous attempt at pandering. The Des Moines Register described the audience as "snickering." And yes, Richardson was probably intending this at least partly as a joke, but considering that Iowa has been actually acting as if it has a God-granted right to go first, this is being perceived as pandering. Not a good move.

• Bush v. Gore

A new book about to come out on the Supreme Court (The Nine, by Jeffrey Toobin), Justice Souter (one of the four Justices who ruled in favor of a recount) was so crushed by the Bush v. Gore decision he almost resigned. From The Examiner:

In “The Nine,” which goes on sale Sept. 18, Toobin writes that while the other justices tried to put the case behind them, “David Souter alone was shattered,” at times weeping when he thought of the case. “For many months, it was not at all clear whether he would remain as a justice,” Toobin continues. “That the Court met in a city he loathed made the decision even harder. At the urging of a handful of close friends, he decided to stay on, but his attitude toward the Court was never the same.

Past reports had already revealed how distraught Souter was about the Gore v. Bush decision, and this appears to stem from Souter's judicial ideology much more than his political leanings. After all, Bush's father had appointed Souter to the Supreme Court. Souter genuilely believed that the federal government and judicial branch had no right to get involved in the Florida mess, and that the five conservative justices believed that too but had chosen to rule against a recount for partisan reasons.