Why do you make this so easy for me?His actual statement was 'states and terretories' but the right wing machine cut that part out.
Unless Snopes has suddenly and inexplicably become part of the 'right wing machine', he truly said "fifty-seven states" with NO mention of territories, and listening to the clip, there appears to be NO tampering.
Do you have a source that demonstrates that he said 'territories' in context with 50 states?
He said it - he screwed it up, and it doesn't matter.
Just like it really doesn't matter that Palin flubbed the Revere story.
You won't jump on Obama because you support him. At least I'm willing to acknowledge that Palin isn't a master of history. Fundamentally, it doesn't really matter - the choice of who to support should be a matter of their policy positions (at least initially), not whether or not they are great speakers or remember the details of 5th Grade history.
Should she have brushed up on the baseline history before she spoke? Sure. Should Obama NOT speak without a carefully prepared script and a teleprompter nearby? Sure. Does it really make a significant difference? No - because I believe that Obama's IDEAS and SOLUTIONS suck, irrespective of how poorly he comes across when he's not wound up and fully prepped.
You libbies get on here and call Palin names, but none of you ever seem willing to discuss why her ideas won't work. I guess it's just easier to denigrate than it is to debate respectfully.