Okay, she may be incompetent, but I do believe she misspoke, and by omission of the word “unfortunately” in the sentence, her words were easily misinterpreted. To me the structure of the sentence tells me that she was attempting to frame “room to destroy” as an unintended consequence. There’s plenty to criticize, but I’d rather focus on those things than play semantic “gotcha” games. Of course, she did a pretty lousy job of trying to clarify her original statement.
I would also point out she amended her statement after being coached to do so in a call from the white hut.
I personally don’t think she misspoke. I think she’s incompetent, but I think she only backed off because she was called on the idiocy of her statement. If this was a Republican (or dare I say it, a man) - we wouldn’t be making excuses for her. We’d be calling for her head.
Oh horse pucky. Listen to her again. Her speech was very measured and clear, no halting or hemming and hawing. No aide grabbed her elbow to get her to rethink and correct her statement.
To buy into your argument she had to be completely oblivious to what was coming out of her mouth as she spoke, and this coming from one trained as a lawyer.
More telling is her five hour silence after the speech, enough time to have reviewed her words and to have had her aides and legal advisors comprehend her words and the immediate consequences and make a clear and unambiguous correction.
Rawlings instead, no doubt was trying to locate rev-Run Al and Golf-1 on the phone.
She has no executive skills only the same hood cred as a community organizor as Golf-1.
I heard her words from her own mouth. She was not being paraphrased or interpreted. It was her voice , her words, her speaking. There was no room for misunderstand what she was saying. that one, she owns.