Josh Richman

Josh Richman covers state and national politics for the Bay Area News Group. A New York City native, he earned a bachelor’s degree in journalism from the University of Missouri and reported for the Express-Times of Easton, Pa. for five years before coming to the Oakland Tribune and ANG Newspapers in 1997. He is a frequent guest on KQED Channel 9’s “This Week in Northern California;” a proud father; an Eagle Scout; a somewhat skilled player of low-stakes poker; a rather good cook; a firm believer in the use of semicolons; and an unabashed political junkie who will never, EVER seek elected office.

  • Truthclubber


    Unsure, defensive, shrill.


    Confident, forceful, empathic.

    Game OVER.

    Obama played a brilliant “rope-a-dope” strategy on Romnuts on the first debate, feigning him into a false sense of assurance, and then…wait for it…hammered him with the real Obama that showed up tonight, and IT SHOWED.

    Romnuts looked at times like Bambi — the deer in the headlights.

  • Elwood

    How about a draw?

    They both lost?

    No clear winner.

    Advantage Romney.

  • JohnW

    Good debate. Nice to see POTUS show up. Instant polls and pundits give the debate edge to Obama. But I doubt it will have much impact on the election. Sorry to say that trajectory still favors Romney. In swing states where Obama holds a lead but is short of 50%, history suggests fence-sitters go to the challenger.

  • Truthclubber

    @2 —

    When credible and well-produced parodies like this one can be made of a candidate, there is not even a snowball’s chance in hell that he will see the inside of the Oval Office — and get to sit behind The Desk.

  • JohnW

    People have been surprised about how Romney tries to manhandle the moderators with interruptions, demanding to speak out of turn and taking as much time as he pleases. They shouldn’t be surprised. He was notorious for doing this during the GOP primary debates. During a CNN-sponsored debate in February, the moderator tried to get Romney on track when he was unresponsive to the question. Romney shot back, “You know, you get to ask the questions you want. I get to give the answers I want.”

    Makes you wonder whether this is just a debate strategy or the doings of a CEO control freak who surrounds himself with “yes men” and doesn’t tolerate dissenting views from his advisors.

  • Elwood

    @ #5 John W.

    You know if you just substitute Obama for Romney in your post it would really ring true.

    Crowley gave Obama more time than Romney.

    And she either misspoke or lied about the chosen one’s Rose Garden comments on Libya, pulling his badly scorched chestnuts out of the fire.

  • Truthclubber

    @5 —

    I just love the way Mittens’ turn of phrase about “binders full of women” has virally exploded into the “meme of the month” — as seen HERE!

    Puts a whole new meaning on the term “manhandling”, don’t ya think?

  • Truthclubber

    Romnuts should be very, very, very afraid that he needs to spend 90 minutes up against Obama next Monday on one subject and one subject ONLY — foreign policy.

    It is going to seem like an eternity in hell for the Mittman — because Obama is going to giftwrap Shrub right around his neck like a preppie wearing a sweater in Marin…

    Four more wars! Four more wars! Four more wars!

  • Elwood

    @ #8

    Ain’t gonna happen.

    All evidence indicates that you live in a parallel universe.

  • JohnW

    Re: #6

    Elwood, I’m sure you’ve watched the many replays of the Rose Garden remarks. So, I don’t know where you get the notion that Crowley misspoke or lied.

    Also, whether or not you think it was appropriate for her to say anything, she was hardly one-sided about it. She confirmed what Obama had said, but she also said that Romney was basically correct about the mixed messages on the question during the two weeks that followed. I think she jumped in (a) to get closure on the back and forth between Romney and Obama on the subject and (b) because Romney was looking directly at her when he said something like “I want to make sure we get this for the record.”

    What she did wasn’t remotely close to what ABC’s Charlie Gibson did with Obama while moderating a debate in 2008. Gibson actually argued with Obama by making unsupported claims about the effect of increasing or decreasing capital gains taxes — a subject on Gibson had no personal expertise.

    By the way, an article in yesterday’s NYT by David Kirkpatrick (Cairo Bureau Chief) indicates that the Benghazi attack was mounted by Ansar al-Shariah, a local group of Islamist militants with no connection to Al Qaeda or any other group . It further indicates this group’s agenda is “to protect Libya from Western influence,” but not to conduct or support attacks outside the borders of Libya. Finally, it indicates that the group was “…moved to attack because of the video, which had first gained attention across the region after a protest in Egypt that day.”

    The article goes on to say, “In June the group staged a similar attack against the Tunisian Consulate over a different film, according to the Congressional testimony of the American security chief at the time, Eric A. Nordstrom.

  • JohnW

    It’s mathematically possible for the electoral vote to be a tie. That seemed highly improbable a couple of weeks ago but is easier to picture now. Of course, that means the GOP House would decide the election. Based on the polls, there could be a bunch of swing states sill up in the air after election night. Could be a mess worse than 2000.

  • Elwood

    John, I believe every thing I read in the NYT is the gospel truth, fair, balanced and unbiased.

    Just as you believe the same of CNS News.

  • JohnW

    Re: 12

    Elwood, you don’t have to “believe everything [you] read in the NYT.”

    However, what you should do is evaluate the substance of the story, not just dismiss it because you apparently think the NYT is some far left opinion rag.

    The NYT and the WSJ may be opposites when it comes to what they say on their opinion pages, but they are both serious, credible news organizations. There is no such separation of Opinion and News in the case of CNS. Everything they print is is agenda-driven, designed to advance a specific, extremely conservative political agenda. Both the NYT and WSJ cover stories that reflect favorably and unfavorably on the politicians and administrations they cover, regardless of party. I think you would have a pretty hard time ever finding anything in CNS that puts the current administration in a favorable light.

    Recently, I commented on one of your CNS links. I didn’t JUST make a snarky comment about CNS as a “news” source. I commented on the substance by pointing out in very specific terms that their storyline was in complete disagreement with the very CBO report they cited to support that storyline. Had I found the CBO data supportive of claims made in the CNS story, I would have accepted that reality, regardless of what I think of CNS in general.