Here is what Bill Richardson was quoted as saying:
"Iowa, for good reason, for constitutional reasons, for reasons related to the Lord, should be the first caucus and primary."
-- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D), quoted by the Des Moines Register.
Now, I suggest that what he actually said - or at least meant to say - was this:
"Iowa, for good reason, for constitutional reasons, for reasons related to the law, should be the first caucus and primary."
It's pretty obvious. The first clause of his statement refers to "constitutional reasons". He then realizes it's not part of the constitution; but more likely a matter of law, so he corrects "constitutional reasons" with "reasons related to the law." He's referring the the Iowa law requiring its caucuses be first.
Iowa Code--Title II Chapter 43.4:
Delegates to county conventions of political parties and party committee members shall be elected at precinct caucuses held not later than the fourth Monday in February of each even-numbered year. The date shall be at least eight days earlier than the scheduled date for any meeting, caucus or primary which constitutes the first determining stage of the presidential nominating process in any other state, territory or any other group which has the authority to select delegates in the presidential nomination. The state central committees of the political parties shall set the date for their caucuses...
Iowa Caucus Law
There is no reason to parallel "constitutional reasons" with "reasons related to the Lord" It makes no sense.
But "law" and "lord" sound very similar. Either Richardson made a verbal stumble or he was mis-heard and thus mis-quoted.
Having been misquoted, and not recalling exactly what he said, he tried to come up with a post facto explanation. Now, his post facto explanation may not have been the best one. It clearly opened him to charges of pandering.
I post this neither to defend Bill Richardson, nor to criticize him. But as members of the reality-based community, we should try to get at the truth. The search for truth begins with a hypothesis. I have suggested a hypothesis.
I further suggests one way to confirm or deny this hypothesis. For a start, there are undoubtedly some audio and/or video records of Richardson's statement. Candidates are recorded all the time as George, "Macacca" Allen can attest. It would be interesting to hear what he actually said. Did he say "lord" or "law"? And if he did actually say "Lord" might it have been a slip of the tongue? Say what you want about Richardson, he doesn't seem like the theocrat type.
Is it important? Probably not very. But if it is important enough to have front page diaries expounding upon the incident it would be a good idea to start by understanding what he actually said or meant to say.
P.S. At least one comment suggested this interpretation, but as the comment did not go into detail on the law itself I thought it might be worth a diary.