This is too funny. On Saturday Palin had this to say:
While waiting in line with her daughter Willow to place her order, a reporter asked Palin if she watched Friday’s debate, and what her impressions were.
“I did, I did,” she said. “McCain did awesome. He was great. He was absolutely on his game.”
Palin added that she is ready to debate Joe Biden next Thursday in St. Louis.
“I am,” she said. “Look forward to it. Look forward to getting to speak to Americans through that debate, absolutely.”
The governor got a more serious interrogation moments later when Temple graduate student Michael Rovito approached her to inquire about Pakistan.
“How about the Pakistan situation?,” asked Rovito, who said he was not a Palin supporter. “What’s your thoughts about that?”
“In Pakistan?,” she asked, looking surprised.
“What’s going on over there, like Waziristan?”
“It’s working with [Pakistani president] Zardari to make sure that we’re all working together to stop the guys from coming in over the border,” she told him. “And we’ll go from there.”
Rovito wasn’t finished. “Waziristan is blowing up!,” he said.
“Yeah it is,” Palin said, “and the economy there is blowing up too.”
“So we do cross border, like from Afghanistan to Pakistan you think?,” Rovito asked.
“If that’s what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should,” Palin responded, before moving on to greet other voters.
Yoday, the McCain has retracted those remarks:
“She would not…she understands and has stated repeatedly that we’re not going to do anything except in America’s national security interest,” McCain told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos of Palin. “In all due respect, people going around and… sticking a microphone while conversations are being held, and then all of a sudden that’s–that’s a person’s position… [bold mine – afarensis] This is a free country, but I don’t think most Americans think that that’s a definitive policy statement made by Governor Palin.”
If that wasn’t her position then why did she say it? McCain seems to be implying that the press is somehow responsible, but I don’t get that. Do words mean different things depending on whether or not the press is present or absent? Does “If that’s what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should.” mean exactly what it says when the press is around but “…negotiating with Pakistan before carrying out attacks on terrorists within their borders…” when the press isn’t? Call me confused!
(Hat tip to TPM)