PUMAPAC is the gift that keeps on giving. Today, they celebrate the 160th anniversary of the Women's Rights Movement...by calling a fellow woman, Anti-Puma Christina Cedeno, a "piece of shit," "stupid," and by implying that she is a prostitute.

I tried to get some clarification from Darragh Murphy on her comment today, #43 on "Happy Birthday Seneca Falls." She was happy to oblige.

Darragh, I wanted to ask you about this comment about Christina Cedeno.? It looks like you are attacking her for having a dissenting viewpoint, but I wanted to get your take on it.

#43 - Christina is a piece of shit who is so stupid that she thinks being swarmed by flies is the same thing as being popular.

Her response:

Sorry Tommy,

I'm attacking her for being a piece of shit who is so stupid that she thinks being swarmed by flies is the same thing as being popular. That's all.

Thanks for the email

Murphy.

I can hear it now, in Christina's pre-school class: "Miss Cedeno, what's a piece of shit?"

I also relayed The Anti Puma's challenge to meet in a public forum and debate the issues. I'm still waiting to hear back on that one. In the meantime, let's talk.

David Knowles reported earlier that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki endorsed Barack Obama's plans for Iraq, but he had some unexpected help in getting the message out: The White House. From ABC's Political Punch:

The White House this afternoon accidentally sent to its extensive distribution list a Reuters story headlined "Iraqi PM backs Obama troop exit plan - magazine."

...The White House employee had intended to send the article to an internal distribution list, ABC News' Martha Raddatz reports, but hit the wrong button.

I guess if someone in the White House is going to hit the wrong button, this is the one to hit.

Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor gleefully forwarded the report of the White House gaffe to its press distribution list.

Earlier today, the campaign sent this statement on Maliki's endorsement, from Susan Rice:

Update: 3:30 pm - Obama Communications Director Bill Burton has sent out a memo entitled "Obama Leading on Foreign Policy, McCain Following." Full text after the jump.

The question remains, though, whether the mainstream media will accept this framing, and if they do, will it resonate with voters? In 2004, all of the information available pointed to the disaster that was the Bush administration, but in the end, enough voters couldn't get over the general impression that Republicans are the party of national security.

As I said several days ago, the true test of Obama's road trip will be to see if he can move the poll numbers on foreign policy and security issues. In the era of so-called "Low-information voters," it can take a long time for things like this to sink in.

Obama's job, now, is to continue his trip without completely blowing it. His stated intention to talk less, and listen more , hits just the right note. The media will take care of politicizing the trip, so Obama is wise to stand aside.

The McCain campaign also might want to lay low for awhile. It seems like whenever they open their mouth, reality steps up to offer a rebuttal.

Here's the quote that's sure to make ripples in the American political pond:

"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

Who said it? Iraq's Prime MInister, Nuri al-Maliki. What was the context? An interview with Germany's popular magazine Der Spiegel. This can't be what John McCain wants to hear, especially with Obama about to arrive in Iraq, and then make his way to Germany. It's just more evidence of how McCain's dare is about to backfire. More Maliki:

"The Americans have found it difficult to agree on a concrete timetable for the exit because it seems like an admission of defeat to them. But it isn't."

Here's the Obama campaign's response, as delivered by Susan Rice:

"Senator Obama welcomes Prime Minister Malaki's support of a 16 month timeline for the redeployment of U.S. combat brigades. This represents an important opportunity to transition to Iraq responsibility, while restoring our military and increasing our commitment to finish the fight in Afghanistan."

It's hard to fault McCain for beating on this drum...

...considering that last spring conventional wisdom said he was doomed for sticking to the president's plan in Iraq. But on the eve of Obama's visit to Iraq, McCain wants to remind everyone that this is his issue.

But it's not the silver bullet that McCain apparently thinks it is. Republicans and Democrats won't change their minds on the issue, and the independents in the middle simply no longer see Iraq as a top issue. The best thing here is that Iraq has been moved from a losing issue for Republicans to a neutral issue. That's a positive change, but it won't win them any elections from a pure political sense.

It's the economy, this election will go to the party and nominee that has the most credible plan to fix the economy and reduce energy prices. We'll call this the heating oil election.

The Bush Administration and the Iraqi government announced an agreement today that sets up a dialog between the two nations on a "general time horizon" for the U.S troop presence in Iraq. The Administration chose its wording carefully, and says that the language of the agreement does not commit the United States to an arbitrary timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. White House spokesman Scott Stanzel stressed the any withdrawals under the agreement would be based upon an assessment of conditions on the ground, and not on political considerations.

"I think it's important to remember that the discussions about timeline issues previously were from Democrats in Congress who wanted to arbitrarily retreat from Iraq without consideration of conditions on the ground. All of the discussions that we have always had have been based on conditions on the ground and making progress in the country, and we are doing just that."

Another White House spokesman, Gordon Johndroe, called the goals of the agreement "aspirational," and placed the focus of the deal not on U.S. troop withdrawals, but on Iraqi troop performance. "The focus is on the Iraqi assumption of missions, not on what troop levels will be," he said.

The agreement comes in the context of continuing negotiations over a final status of forces agreement between Iraq and the United States. Such an agreement would govern the conditions under which the U.S. could maintain bases and a troop presence in Iraq after the United Nations mandate authorizing the current U.S. presence expires at the end of the year. Iraq, responding to domestic political considerations, has been driving a hard bargain in the talks, seeking a one year agreement and holding fast to its demands, such as to have American contractors who may commit crimes during their stay subjected to Iraqi, not U.S. civilian, law.

Here's the breaking story I didn't get to this morning, from the Obama campaign (via email):

Obama campaign response to Senator McCain's decision to keep Phil Gramm as an economic advisor:

"Senator McCain's economic plan gives nearly $4 billion in tax breaks to the oil companies but doesn't provide any tax relief to more than 100 million middle-class families. But that shouldn't come as a surprise since today we learned that Phil Gramm will continue to advise Senator McCain on economic policy despite calling Americans struggling in this economy 'whiners,'" said Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor.

No sooner had Gramm gotten most of the tire marks out of his skin than he found himself on the business end of the Straight Talk Express. Now we know what all those bumps were during McCain's press bus chats.

Here's a report from Countdown, followed by Gramm's statement and my pieces of copper:

The blogosphere is in a late Friday minor uproar, especially those worried that Obama may be the target of some unfriendly fire now that McCain may have possible exposed him to some of the same, TPM has the Reuters piece:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain said on Friday that his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, is likely to be in Iraq over the weekend.

The Obama campaign has tried to cloak the Illinois senator's trip in some measure of secrecy for security reasons. The White House, State Department and Pentagon do not announce senior officials' visits to Iraq in advance.

"I believe that either today or tomorrow -- and I'm not privy to his schedule -- Sen. Obama will be landing in Iraq with some other senators" who make up a congressional delegation, McCain told a campaign fund-raising luncheon.

And Josh comments:

It's known that Obama is leaving on his foreign trip this weekend and the Journal OpEd page this morning said that Obama could arrive in Iraq "as early as this weekend." And with a slew of reporters in tow, it's not exactly highly classified information. But there is a reason definite information about these sorts of trips aren't released in advance.

Hypothetically, maybe McCain was just guessing. But even so it would still be a serious lapse of judgment on his part.

Let's everyone grab a paper bag and breathe in and out. Without the McCain comments, there was enough public information that an enterprising Al Qaeda agent intent on doing some mischief could have put two and two together. Are we really suggesting that Al Qaeda would prefer to attack Obama and throw the election to Hillary or the Republicans?

And if Obama gets hurt it's McCain's fault because he repeated what the entire world's press corp already knew? Color me skeptical.

John McCain's campaign has released a new :30 spot airing in battleground states titled "Troop Funding." It's focus is Barack Obama's lack of support for winning the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. This ad comes a week after Obama's negative attack on McCain regarding gas prices, the Obama campaign's retort to this ad was to call it negative.

And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and her name that sat on him was Christina, and Hell followed with her.

As I come close to wrapping up a week of stories about PUMA (People United Means Action, or Party Unity My Ass, or Pelting Unicorns Mit Acorns), I was hoping to have reached a state of Nirvana by now, in which I would clearly see that up really was down, and voting for John McCain was the way to strike a blow for women everywhere. After meeting (virtually) Darragh Murphy, the founder of PUMAPAC, and dipping a toe into the Just Say No Deal coalition's cyber-pool, I was starting to feel like part of the gang.

But, then, I was contacted by Christina Cedeno, also known as The Anti-PUMA. She has put together a website that aims to act as smelling salts to those in a PUMA trance. The 22 year-old preschool teacher says she can't wait to get mic'ed up and throw down with a real live PUMA. She says there aren't that many of them.



According to the Anti-Puma's research, she estimates that there may be only about 20,000 PUMAs, as opposed to the millions PUMA claims. The idea, she says, is to start a slew of sites, and have the same people hitting all of them to make it appear to be a bigger movement.

I was skeptical, but then, I saw an article from ABC13.com, in which Darragh Murphy and The Anti-Puma are both quoted, and it made me pause:

She (Murphy) says her group believes Obama will not win in November and that "this is not a movie or a television show. People will not vote for Obama in November".

Her group just released its fundraising numbers for June and it pulled in $22,840.

Twenty-two grand? My dog, Emma, raised more money that that in her presidential bid, and she doesn't even have PayPal.