The latest development in the continually evolving political position of Barack Obama finds our vague, mysterious, untried candidate flip-flopping on troop withdrawals:

“When I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I am sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.”

Interesting words from the person who based his candidacy on the complete removal of troops in sixteen months. Per the Obama campaign website:

“Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.”

Attempting to explain the disparity, Obama said,

“We’re going to try this again. Apparently, I was not clear enough. I have said throughout this campaign that this war was ill conceived, that it was a strategic blunder and that it needs to come to an end. I’ve also said I would be deliberate and careful about how we get out.” [Furthermore,] “I want to have conversations with commanders on the ground, Iraqi officials. When I come back that information will obviously shape our plans for moving forward.”

When asked why he’s backing away from a specific timeline for troop withdrawals, Obama said,

“I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain security. That assessment hasn’t changed.”

So, Senator Obama, if I’m hearing you correctly, your official position on troop withdrawals is:

“I will begin to immediately or in the near or distant future begin to redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq. Depending on political expediency, I will remove two or more or no combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within a time-frame dictated by the safety and security of our troops which may be 16 months or more or less or never.”

(feel free to use that for your campaign)

MORE: Hot Air; Wak up America; Red State; Flopping Aces; Power Line

“Old Glory in watercolor” by Jake Olden Shy

(h/t: Drudge) Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper received an unwanted gift during his “State of the City” address yesterday. This gift came from Mrs. Rene Marie, the performer asked to sing the National Anthem for the event. It seems that Mrs Marie decided to change things up a bit and rather than sing the Star Spangled Banner, as requested, she sang Lift Ev’ry Voice & Sing, instead. Her selection, recorded in the Congressional Record as the official “African American National Hymn,” stirred up quite a bit of controversy. Why? Because she did this on her own initiative and didn’t inform anyone of her intent.

Colorado Governor, Bill Ritter, felt Mrs. Marie acted inappropriately and her actions were both “Wrong” and “out of bounds.” Furthermore, he felt that that her action didn’t qualify as “fair artistic expression” and was “operating as a distraction.” City Councilman, Charlie Brown, was critical as well:

“There is no substitute for the national anthem, period. And that’s what really bothered me. You know when we fly the flag, the American flag, it’s always the highest flag, as it should be. And that didn’t come across today, that didn’t happen today.”

Mayor Hickenlooper said he didn’t think Mrs. Marie was trying to offend anyone or make a political statement.

(Bull!)

So why did she do it? According to Mrs Marie:

“When I decided to sing my version, what was going on in my head was: ‘I want to express how I feel about living in the United States, as a black woman, as a black person.’” (emphasis mine)

“I, I, I, my, my”: it doesn’t get any more self-serving than that! Not only is it self-serving, its divisive! The Mayor’s “State of the City” address wasn’t just for the black residents of Denver, it was for everyone. Just as the Star Spangled Banner represents everyone living in the United States! Mrs. Marie’s deceitful act only served to alienate herself and other black Americans, turning an otherwise patriotic song into one of protest!

Does she care? When asked if given the opportunity to do it over, would she sing the same song? “Yes”. Would she apologize? “No”.

Sounds an awful lot like someone trying to make a political statement, doesn’t it?

MORE: Hot Air

Failed Democratic presidential candidate and retired General Wesley Clark, a former Hillary Clinton and now Barack Obama supporter, chided John McCain on his lack of command experience:

“In the matters of national security policy making, it’s a matter of understanding risk” … “It’s a matter of gauging your opponents and it’s a matter of being held accountable. John McCain’s never done any of that in his official positions.” … “He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world, but he hasn’t held executive responsibility.” … “That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn’t a wartime squadron.”

So Clark, I suppose Obama possesses the requisite command experience? You’re a fool and I believe it wouldn’t matter who was running on the Republican ticket, you’d hold the same opinion. Your comments on the The Huffington Post give away your left-leaning bias:

“Barack had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq before it began, and he is ready to bring our troops home and end the occupation of Iraq in a responsible way. John McCain has said that American troops should be willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years.”

This is the same spin thats been circulating for months. Certainly Obama may have opposed the war before it began, but in what capacity did he offer his opposition? He certainly wasn’t a member of the Senate at that time. After all, he wasn’t elected until November 2004, a year after the Iraq war began. It’s easy to say you oppose something, when you’re not held to account for your position. (incidently, Hillary Clinton supported the war in an official capacity and you supported her candidacy before she dropped out, leaving you with Obama. Doesn’t that make you a hypocrite?) And sure, McCain said we could be in Iraq for 100 years, in the same context that we’ve peacefully ensured regional stability in countries like Korea and Germany for more than half a decade.

Your comments are half-truths and only serve to mislead. I believe you know this and that gives me significant insight into your character. Sadly, you have no integrity.

Electronic commerce is disruptive to merchants by driving some kind of radical development that changes their business so severely they suffer setbacks. This problem was faced most dramatically by traditional, brick-and-mortar businesses that couldn’t adapt or didn’t adapt fast enough to the emergence of disruptive technology. Companies naturally play to their strengths, but many have suffered decreased market share or even bankruptcy when their strengths suddenly faced obsolescence.

International Business Machines (IBM) is such a company. Busy playing to the large corporations, IBM missed the boat with the introduction of the personal computer (PC). Although IBM eventually reacted effectively to the rise of the PC, its strength was to play to the heavy-hitters. In doing so, they missed a huge opportunity, and a significant opportunity to lead the market, because the tremendous growth in PC sales lay outside the big companies IBM played to. Therefore, IBM’s market share, once 80%, plummeted to the single digits. This is an example of a disrupted merchant, what about the disrupter?

While IBM and like-minded companies play from a position of strength, disruptive innovators play from a position of weakness. Sun Tzu said, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.” A disruptive innovator knows he or she can’t compete with an established business, with established customers, so they have to create a new strength from their competitors’ weaknesses. Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon.com is just such an innovator.

In 1995, Amazon.com debuted as an online bookstore that maintained about 2,000 titles in its Seattle warehouse. Most of Amazon’s orders were placed directly through wholesalers and book publishers, so no warehouse was necessary. Amazon would simply receive a book from the source and then ship it to the customer. At any one time, Amazon would only have about 2,000 titles in its warehouse. Amazon had virtually no overhead, and maintained no inventory. This became Amazon’s strength and traditional brick-and-mortar stores like Barnes and Noble and Borders couldn’t compete. In fact, had they not entered the electronic marketplace themselves, they might be nothing more than a memory today. While electronic commerce is often disruptive to merchants who don’t recognize the waves of change, it is continuous to consumers who are willing to ride the wave.

Electronic commerce is continuous to consumers who change with the growing technology. I began working with computers in the mid-80s. My first computer was the floppy-based IBM PC Portable. To use this computer, I had to learn DOS commands and eventually became quite productive using Enable OA. Now, over 20 years later, I’m a dedicated Mac-user at home and a reluctant PC-user at work. Over the years, electronic commerce was continuous for me, as I grew with the technology.