JP: This is a pattern for Rock; look at his endorsement last year in  a minor judicial race:

"My first endorsement goes to Sharen Hudson running for a civil-court judgeship in the 6th district. Ms. Hudson is a black former court officer who went on to graduate from law school, and now hopes to end up on the bench. Word on the street is that her opponent (Catherine [sic] Levine) has run a dirty campaign, putting out nasty literature that fudged the truth and cast negative aspersions on a fine hardworking mother."

The "Dirty" piece in question merely raised the fact that Ms. Hudson refused to put herself before the scrutiny of any of the Bar Association judicial screening panels evaluating the race. NOT THE PARTY PANEL (though she dissed that too), BUT THE BAR PANELS. Rock never seemed to consider that such criticism is just as legitmate when raised against a person of color as when it's raised against Noach Dear (then again he was soft on Dear, because Dear's opponent had helped to send a black criminal to jail). Any judicial candidate who refused to submit themselves to the judgment of their peers must be presumed suspect and unqualified.

Dirty campaign? Talk about an accusation that "fudged the truth"!!!

Especially, loved the reference  to "a fine hardworking mother"  East Side). Rock bascially accused another "fine hardworking mother" of racism for raising legitmate issues. 

JP: Why should anyone be surprised that this pattern repeats itself?

As a longtime fan, and critic of Mr. Hackshaw's, a few points:

First of all, great and very well done piece JP. I agree with it entirely. Rock's piece was, indeed, by far his worst work to date and undercuts his reputation for being a thoughtful, if often philisophically wrong, blogger.

Secondly, reading it I thought three things, "Rock is as predictable as a real rock." "He will focus on your joking about his 'hetero man crush'" (which you kinda did do) and then state that because your pseudonymous he does not feel it's necessary to respond in detail, because in RockLand (which is the next town over from the Twilight Zone) completely valid points are invalidated by not using your real name (unless you're "Gatemouth," who he makes an exception for, becuase he's met him in real life).

So predictable. I knew he wouldn't simply say "whoops, I was wrong about New Hampshire," I didn't know what his comeback was, but Rock seldom admits a mistake.

And as to your piece, if he responds, he will do what he did with me. He will do what he did every time I point by point criticized him: he will again say you're points don't matter because you don't use your real name and he will nitpick and argue against only a few of the things you wrote and ignore the hard stuff. It's funny, he talks about our debate on same-sex civil marriage, which is a great example; he never responded to many of the holes I pointed to in his extremely flawed and often fallacious arguments. And then declared "agree to disgree, but I'm right" (a paraphrase).

He will also, as he already has started to do, attack you personally JP, which of course is a logical fallacy called an ad hominem.

I caution you, if he actually engages you, to avoid things he can distract with, like the hetero man crush thing, because it will only give him ammunition to appear like he's responding to you as he blows smoke.

And to Rock, as a "Gay person" on this site, I'm not mad at you, I just think you're wrong and you never answered to most of the points I made against your arguments. I think you talk a good game, but cannot defend your writing by point-by-point analysis of the critic's critique. If I'm wrong, prove it. Do what JP did to your piece and point by point say why he's wrong. You won't for a few reasons, mostly because he's right, but another reason is that I don't think you have the intellectual stamina to do anything but write directly--you don't have the ability for rational and complete argument and debate, which can only be done if you respond to every single point he makes.

For those who dare point the finger at such a distinguished and intellectual being, SHAME ON YOU!  Rock is a rock, and an evolutionary force dedicated to providing the public with the services that the press was once held accountable for.  Let's face reality, racism is the way to shut people up and force them down, if you get my drift.  Gay was once a way of expressing happiness, now it's a way of life for the world, enforced upon those of us with moral values.  To tell the truth or not to is a death sentence.  This is why such a great guy should not be left to fight any battle alone.  To defame the character of a truth teller is to give in to the new age politics of name calling, smear tactics and innuendo.

I was simply flabbergasted by Hackshaw's article after New Hampshire (and was so stunned that I could not bring myself to even post a comment). There isn't a doubt in my mind that Hackshaw has adversely affected his credibility by writing such an awful article.

This could have been a wonderful opportunity for Hackshaw to take the high road by simply admitting that he made an error about New Hampshire. But instead he offers a profane, unsubstantiated account that nothing at all to do with journalism or political blogs. No, instead he publishes an article that resembles little more than the uncontrollable ravings of a man too closely intertwined with a presidential candidate.

Mr. Hackshaw, there is still a way to minimize the damage you have inflicted upon yourself: immediately admit that your bitter disappointment in Obama's New Hampshire loss caused you to indulge - and then write about and publish - the most disgusting thoughts you could create.

Because what you wrote is completely indefensible.

It's hard being Rock, just when you think you have friends in the world of bloggers POW, they turn their back on you.  Welcome to Politics, I for one think Rock did a good job making some valid points, her tears won her the election, PERIOD.  I like Hillary and have supported her for many years and beleive she is more experieced that Obama and Bill when he first ran, but Obama has qualities which make him special.  We shall see, but I'm quite sure one thing we can all agree on, finally the younger generation is opening their eyes to government.  Rock and JP, hug and make up, no not a gay joke.

Wow, JP -

That was some rebuttal to Rock Hackshaw's article. Sounds like you put some serious thought into it. You also sound very much like a Bilary Supporter.

You can't tell me that when a Hackshaw commented on the dirty underhanded tactics of the Clinton campaign that he was showing himself to be racist. Let's be for real. Hillary knew she was scraping the bottom of the barrel since her loss in Iowa. EVERYONE knew it. Why do you think the New York Post smeared one of the ugliest pictures to date of her across their front page. She was starting to PANIC! She knew whatever she was doing was not working for her and I commend her for her change in tactics. However, I do not agree with the way she did it.  Everyone keeps talking about Hillary's experience and how she would be more suited to be president.  Here is a prime example of why experience means diddly-squat. Look at the current a**hole in office.  I have no doubt the majority would agree when I say his "experience" has led Americans down a road none of us wanted to go. Yet, we elected him! Now everyone's moaning and groaning about the bang up job he's doing running this country and killing off our young men and women in this God-forsaken war.  It's all about personal agenda. The Clintons have it, Obama has one, everyone has one.  As Americans we have to decide whose personal agenda would we benefit most from?  I for one do not want to see the Clintons back in office. THey had their chance for two terms. Their time is done. Step aside and change speak.

Everyone is ENTITLED to their own opinion. I wouldn't label Rock a racist or sexist because of them.  There is nothing wrong with being passionate about politics.  This is what this presidential election is all about. If Bilary can be mean, sneaky, and undeniably crass with their comments, why can't we be? After all, we are ultimately responsible for putting a president in office. I didn't see you highlighting the cheap shots and jabs Bilary made against Obama during her barrel scraping campaigning in NH.  It was all over CNN for chrissakes.

JP get your head out of your a$$. This is life, it's politics! It's a dirty game and it only gets dirtier. Although we appreciate the book you posted and the efforts you made to get the facts straight, it's a waste of time.  You essentially did the same thing Hackshaw did.  Voice your opinion.  Again, you are perfectly entitled to it. That's why these message boards are called BLOGS. 

We democrats have enough to worry about what with the possibility of Bloomberg getting some action as an Independent.  This will be a fight to the finish. If you think Hackshaw's comments are something, wait until the gloves come off in this presidential race. You ain't seen nuttin yet.

As I am unaffiliated with any Presidential campaign and, as a result, not privy to the kinds of information that you are, Rock, I have only a few questions:

1. Is there proof of the literature that Clinton distributed about Obama and his record or beliefs on abortion? I think it would be helpful to post such a piece on Room 8 (if the law allows).

2. What is this business of push-polling? Most people don't have a firm grasp of what that is. In any case, what proof is there that Cllinton engaged in push-polling?

3. Could you expand on how Clinton made Obama out to be inferior? Refer to her specific comments or behaviors. I don't think it's enough to suggest that Clinton played "the race card" without a detailed explanation of how that was done.

4. Please show how Clinton has offered a bounty - over the Internet, no less - for "dirt on Barack."

I believe that a little more substance on these matters can go a long way towards helping folks (myself included) get a better understanding of what you're writing about...even if, at the end of the day, this is what competitive politics is often about.

After all, the dirty tricks are used becase they work.

Looking forward to your illumination of these matters.

Rock uses ad hominem attacks and doesn't respond to valid points.

"JP, you wear white sheets, so I won't respond." Good come back!

As always, he can dish it out, but he cannot take it and ends up attacking the person making valid points, that even his fan, Cynical Negro, agreed with.

And one more time. Do you stand behind misspelling the name of the Senator from New York 20 times. You can admit that one, can't you?

I'll be away from a computer from the rest of the day, but I really look forward to reading this thread tonight.

Cynical Negro: If you respond to his selective response to this post, as he asked you to do, you will just be enabling him to side-step JP's excellently reasoned piece. I urge you to request, as I have done, that he respond to JP, and not just by saying he's in the KKK, which is, frankly, possibly worse than what he wrote about Hillary.

Wonk -

Get over it. Why don't you make your own comments stop riding JP's coattails. In the larger scheme of things who cares about the misspelling of the Senator's name?

I'd like to know exactly what kind of damage did this Hackshaw guy inflict? Were his comments posted on C-Span? Is he running for president?  Is he officially apart of Barack or Hillary's campaign? Do his comments help make any decisions in either of these campaigns? Are they picked up by the local New York News Papers and spread throughout the state? What damage has he done?  It's obvious he is not concerned about any damage done to himself or his own reputation. So why should any of you care?  Or is it that he ruffled your feathers and now you're all pissed?

I am pleased to see that I am not the only whom notices this pattern with Rock.  When you dare to criticize him, he will often answer you with non-answers or personal attack. He will distort the issue and try to turn the discussion around to an unrelated subject.    Worse yet, he will say that he will address the issue in a furture article that never comes rather than address the issue at hand.  

I'm quite sure that the subject article was written out of frustration on Rock's part at the tactics used by "Billary."   However, I am equally sure that it was also written in an attempt to cover for his prediction that Obama would win New Hampshire.  Now of course, this was a prediction that most of us shared, but rather than simply say "I was wrong," IMHO, Rock went too far.

  That being said, Hillary did engage in behavior that was as bad as any the GOP has and I think that it will cost her. 

Anonymous 12:48 wrote: "It's obvious he is not concerned about any damage done to himself or his own reputation. So why should any of you care?"

I enjoy reading Hackshaw's political musings even if I don't agree with all of them. And like me, he hails from the Caribbean, so maybe there's a little ethnic pride there (what can I say).

There was a time when a Hackshaw article would generate dozens of responses (or more). Some were crude personal attacks and others were informative. But I found it all interesting reading.

But I now I have to publicly wonder if the opinion expressed by other posters - that Hackshaw is unable to withstand criticism and does not constructively engage posters - has hurt his ability to evolve and grow his blog. (Sorry EnWhySeaWonk - guess I'm an enabler).

Sadly, I believe the answer is "yes." And Hackshaw may not care. Maybe all he really wants is to post his opinion and be left alone. If so, then I suspect he'll get his wish.

1. Racism: Reverse-racism is also racism. Believing that Obama should get a free pass and not be challenged because he is black (this was your point), while it is acceptable to defame and discredit the white challenger, is racist. Both are candidates and both should be held to the same standard. That is what equality means. Affirmative Action and preferential treatment for minorities might work in academia or in the job-market, but I most definitely do not want my President chosen due to Affirmative Action.

Also, you apparently didn't read the whole piece. If you had, you would see that I believe Obama will be President in the future (2012 if a Rep wins, 2016 is a Dem wins), and when that time comes, I will be first in line to volunteer and help him. Your ad-hominem (white sheets) only serves to further cheapen you.

2. Sexism: No comment from you? I guess your words in the original piece regarding "fragile, emotional" women speak for themselves.

3. Homosexuality: Why are you so quick to be on the defensive. Just because you call another man a "beautiful mulatto" doesn't mean that you want to have sexual relations with him. It seems like a lot of otherwise very heterosexual men are looking at Obama with lustful eyes.

The most telling thing is that you have not really answered any of the substance in my post.

1. Should Obama be held to the same standard as other Presidential candidates (past and present) regarding his qualifications, record and experience?

2. Do you recognize that you have slandered a Presidential candidate in your piece by providing unproven allegations and charges against her? Here's some advice: Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. If the things you are saying are true, you have the obligation to provide evidence of those allegations. Otherwise you're simply a gossip-monger that went too far.

3. Do you recognize that dismissing women voters as fragile and emotional and stating that they are so easily manipulated by tears is inherently sexist? What would your mother or significant other say about such a statement? Try that line out in your local Democratic clubs and see what the response will be from women.

Your credibility as an analyst depends on this. Hopefully you will find some guts to auto-reflect and rethink your positions.

LOL! LLLLLets Get Ready to Ruuuuummmmmbbbbbllllllle!

OK Rock, the gauntlet has been thrown by this JP character. So what are you going to do now? JP is out for blood and is salivating for your response. Sounds like a lot of thought is going into these responses from JP.

JP - Calm down, it's not that serious.

PART  of what JP says is true Rock. If you are going to make these allegations then you have to back them up and not with heresay. If you stand by what you write there is no need to hide under the covers when someone calls you out. Choose your weapons and fight like a man.  You knew what would happen when you posted your comments. Did you think no one would be affected or have an opinion? 

It's like you throw these things out there, then when you are backed into a corner by someone with a different take on things, you clam up! What happened to "watching your pen smoke?" Here is the perfect opportunity to burn this blog down with your literary spark.  Either you accept the challenge your comments illicit or stop posting stuff you can't defend.

I mean yes this is America and we have the freedom of speech.  However, you have a tendency to be very opinionated and blunt with the things you say. Sometimes even outright nasty! Guess what? I love it! But if you are going to snap and crackle, don't fizzle before you POP!  Set the record straight. Shut these m-f'ers up if that's what you gotta do. Just don't play the victim. It doesn't suit you.

If AG Andrew Cuomo can say this about Obama Rock is 100% right:

”It’s not a TV-crazed race. Frankly you can’t buy your way into it. You can’t shuck and jive at a press conference,” he added."

When will Cuomo say he is sorry and when will on NY pol call him on what he said?  Never

I'm back sooner than expected. I am perfectly comfortable being on JP's coattails, as I have been through this many times before. It's very frustrating to take the time to carefully critique someone's work which you disagree with, only to have the person come back with extremely selective responses, ad hominen attacks and claims that you're opinion does not matter if you don't use your given name. I've been where JP is and I want him to know he's not alone.

It is not an ad hominem attack to say that Rock won't defend what he wrote. It is not an ad hominem attack to call him a sexist or racist, if it backed up with how the arguer believes he is sexist or racist. It is not an ad hominem attack to say it his worst work ever, if the arguer says why. Ad homimen means "against the person." It is a fallacy that distracts from the real argument, rather than a legitimate response. JP's peice, nor anything I, nor Cynacle Negro, wrote in criticism of Rock are ad hominem attacks.

Rock is very fond of talking about how many pieces he's put up here, but he does not stand by his work meaningfully when challenged. If Rock stood by what he wrote, he would go point by point down JP's post and say why he thinks he's wrong. I feel like a broken record when I say this, but it's true. There were times, in comments, where I would ask a very specific question about his point of view and his next response would completely ignore it.

This is not to say that Rock has not been unjustifiably attacked. I have seen some incredibly racist and just dumb comments made about his work since this blog began, but JP's piece does not fall into that category.

Rock has written some good stuff on here and I don't want to belittle that in the slightest (although a lot of it was simply reporting his insider gossip)--in a sense I'm a fan of his work and don't usually comment because I simply absorbed what he had to say thought "that's interesting" and moved on. Thus, I don't hate Rock, and actually am usually pleased to see when he puts up something new. But, again, I completely agree with JP about his "Hilary" piece.

As to the spelling of her name, how is anyone who lives in this country, let alone a political writer, supposed to be taken seriously when he can't spell "Hillary" Clinton's name? It wasn't a typo, he did it 20 times in that piece. In addition, it's a very simple thing that he can acknowledge he was wrong about--but he can't even admit to something that is indisputable.

And Cynicle Negro: That wasn't enabling, if you had done what Rock asked you to do, it would have been, what you wrote was spot on and I appreciate it.

Cuomo made an insensitive remark (there goes that gorilla again, Hackshaw). But what is he supposed to apologize for?

For just making the comment?

Or for the thinking process that enabled him to say it?

Seems to me that there's a lot of concern about race only when comments like Cuomo's are made. There will be some indignation on one side followed by regret, apologies and/or denial on the other. But the larger issues of RACE are never fully vetted.

That's what I expect from Hackshaw. A direct, substantive portrayal of the many ways RACE is affecting this presidential campaign, with all of its ugliness in full view. Because the mainstream media will never do it. And can you blame them? Of course not, because in public, people pretend that we live in some sort of meritocracy, where skin color and culture differences play little or no role in outcomes.

Meanwhile, behind closed doors, there are plenty of folks saying and thinking the same degrading things Cuomo did.

Is it true that Obama got Secret Service protection earlier than any presidential contender in U.S. history? If so, it ain't because the guy's from Illinois...

If what you say is true, it looks like they imported some NYC inspectors to New Hampshire. But, Someone putting the wrong info on the wrong line isn't fraud Rock. It happens everywhere, and it usaulyl gets corrected in the final count.

But I suspected it didn't happen. If they had anything like that, Obama wouldn't have conceded. 

How do you tell when Rock is bullshiting?

His fingers are moving.  

...you accuse Clinton of election fraud, and then admit that what you called fraud was a transcription error.

In the world of libel, this is what is known as "actual malce", meaning a knowing or reckless disregard of the fact. You knew it wasn't fraud and you said it was.

Hillary could actual win this lawsuit; usually a near impossibility for an elected official  

I guess Rock is showing his true colors.  He get a little criticism and is threatening to take his ball and go home.  What's the point of writing anything if you don't want people commenting on it?  Or are you too thin skinned to take criticism along with all the ass-kissing?

Maybe you should start a new blog with all comments disabled so that you can write whatever the hell you want without fear of free expression by your readers.  Although if you did that there probably wouldn't be too many readers left. 

This is actually becoming humorous. I started writing my piece disappointed and have actually become amused by your reaction. I didn't take snippets. For the most part I cut and pasted entire paragraphs (sometimes 2) to show exactly the context in which the quote was made. If you want to see where you said something, look at the bold text - it's right there.

I think the funny part is that I keep thinking of the Bush administration with your last response. ("If I don't think it's true, then it's not true, regardless of evidence to show otherwise. And vice-versa.")

What you've also done is cement your dramatic decline in reputatoin in my mind.  I really hoped that your original post was an anomaly written in an angry, emotional moment and that with some reflection you would modify some of your hateful words.  However, your actions in response to this message show that it was not an anomaly and that you are perfectly comfortable as a bottom feeding cretin.

I would not have said what I'm about to say three days ago and it sincerely pains me to say it now, but if you decide to leave, then Good Riddance! 

I agree with Errol, Rock. This is all bullshit. Tactics from those of which have nothing better to do with their time. They don't get it, nor will they ever. As long as you continue to respond to the nonsense it will keep coming. Wonk and JP are sucking each other off on these blogs. And everyone else who leaves a comment and remains anonymous need not even bother.

Grow up people.

Rock needs a forum where no one challenges his positions.  It's insulting to say that readers of this blog "don't get it" when the fact is, Rock can't handle critcism.     I don't think we are the ones who don't get it.    We get it perfectly fiine.

 BTW...Bill Clinton is on WBLS as we speak spinning the racist drivel that we have heard in the last week from "Billary." 

Rock writes what he feels is true; JP posts a very articulate rebuttal. Both are a bit edgy; both get challenged. Most of what is said is not too far out of bounds, although Rock does seem a bit paranoid about the gay stuff (and everything else).

It's America; what a country!

Even to stuff concerning fraud was fair comment. Rock clearly stated he was not accusing of fraud in a manner equivalent to me saying "I'm not calling Rock a homosexual and will draw not insinuations from the Obama DNA found in the seme on his necktie.  

It's amazing how huge a hypocrite Rock is:

Taking snippets out of my writings, then elaborating on the snippets with lies and hyperbole, is so dishonest that it is enough reason for me not to respond to you beyond this.

Yet, what does he do? Exactly that. He has not responded to 90% of JP's points, but he's used hyperbole ("KKK!) instead of argument. This is exactly what he did to me.

When he endorsed Jeanine Pirro, he wrote about the gay community's support of Andrew; I gave him my reasons why I wasn't supporting Pirro, several of which had nothing to with my being gay (including that she wouldn't support the new governor and be too pro-business). He then called me a one issue voter on gay marriage and challenged me to debate him in public about gay marriage. I'm not kidding. I was writing about his endorsement of Jeanine Pirro and his response was to challenge me to literal public debate on a completely seperate issue; and he had the audacity (not of hope) to call me intellectually dishonest.

JP, he said it above, he's chosen to "IGNORE" you. Talk about being intellectually dishonest. Yet these anonymous people (who he conviniently insults for being anonymous when they are against him) keep saying we are just attacking him. A point by point critique of his work, which I have done many times an JP posted yesterday, and pointing out that he does not stand by his work by defending it is not attacking him. To use his words, it is intellectually dishonest to say that JP or I (or even Cynicle Negro, who came down pretty hard on him) are attacking him.

Errol Lewis: Do you honestly believe Rock Hackshaw would have the same audience without legitimate criticism? or do you agree with the anonymous posters who think we are "attacking" him rather than legitimately critiquing his work?. What do suggest, "rockhackshaw.com"? With no comments or better yet only pro-Rock comments approved by Rock? Oh yeah, that will be popular (Yawn).

And I love the threat that he going to leave because he is being attacked. Rock shows his predictablity yet again. Put up or fucking shut up Rock. You have made this empty threat so many times it's laughable. If the quality of your work is to be as bad as this latest one, I am with JP, again--good riddance. But you've made this threat so many times with no follow through, that I doubt you'll go through with it this time.

Hmm, maybe I'll do a piece on how many times Rock has said he's quitting because he can't stand legitimate criticism. I'm sure he will call it an attack, even if all I do is quote him.

Another prediction about Rock:

He said he's ignoring me and JP. He's said he was going to this before when I've trapped with his own words--but he will not follow through with that threat either.

I am willing to bet $20, payable to Rock Hackshaw, that he will respond (in the same way as before, selectively without addressing most of the points) to something JP or I write today.

Gee, Rock you don't even know what "ignore" means. No $20 for you! (Sooooo predictable, come on!)

I am not obsessed with you Rock and it's not personal, except when you call me names like "one issue voter", "liar" and "intellectually honest," and, frankly, that's YOU making it personal for me, not vice versa.

Your belief that I'm obsessed with you is just your homophobia buzzing again. If I was obsessed with you I'd comment on your stuff more often. I only take you to task when I think you are wrong and you, as always, fail to defend your work in a genuine way, and lie by saying I'm attacking you, when critiquing is not attacking you. 

And Rock, I read everything you write, most of which is entertaining and informative. I don't hate you, but you do not stand by your work as many other commenters, including Cynacle Negro agree with me about. 

Wonk,

He called you intellectually dishonest. Not intellectually honest. And pray tell how many times are you going to misspell Cynical Negro's name? There is only one way to spell Cynical

This coming from someone who had the audacity to point out misspellings in Rock's article? Grow up kid. Life is about more than bending over and gettin popped.

Unlike Rock, I admit my mistakes: I'm sorry for my typos 2:31. My "audacity," was to point out he was misspelling Hillary Clinton's name (20 times). Making a misspelling of a word versus misspelling the former First Lady, our Senator and a front runner for the Democratic Nomination's name, in a post ABOUT HER CAMPAIGN, is not even vaguely the same thing. It's a cheap shot to say it is.

Rock, you know what I mean, as I've written numerous times before, including in this thread. I and JP have done detailed responses to you and you do not respond point by point ever. You pick and choose what you respond to and call substantive criticism "attacks." Call it whatever you want, but I call Bullshit on your calling it Bullshit.

You do defend your work; but you took what I wrote intentionally out of context. JP's post is at the top of this page, you haven't responded to most of it. Until you do, I will not stop.

You think it irks me when you "ignore me" um. When have you ever ignored me? How can you say you're ignoring me as you respond to me? Rockland logic is way out there. And you don't irk me, I find you amusing.

And I have to admit that watching you continue your patterns of evasion, name-calling, diversions and pleas for me to stop in response to me and others legitimately criticizing you is far too entertaining for me to stop. But you can do what you said you were already doing and ignore me. Or can you? Maybe you can't.