Statement immediately praised, condemned, misquoted, clarified, walked back, and described as “deeply concerning” by people who may or may not have heard it.
WASHINGTON, SOMEWHERE — A politician said something Tuesday, sending shockwaves through a political system that had previously been occupied with a different politician saying something else.
The remarks came during an appearance before several microphones.
“We’ve been very clear about this,” the politician said, referring to something officials later acknowledged had not been particularly clear.
The politician went on to reaffirm a previously stated position while leaving open the possibility that the position could change depending on circumstances, developments, additional information, polling, lunch, or what somebody says tomorrow.
Reaction was immediate.
“This is outrageous,” said an opposing politician.
Asked which part was outrageous, the opposing politician confirmed that reporters knew damn well which part.
Supporters defended the remarks.
“What was said needed to be said,” said one supporter.
Asked what specifically had been said, the supporter explained that focusing on individual words missed the larger point.
Political analysts agreed the remarks could have significant implications.
“This changes things,” said one analyst.
When asked what things had changed, the analyst requested additional time.
Cable news networks immediately assembled panels of eight people who began simultaneously explaining what the politician had meant.
None agreed.
Within thirty minutes, the politician’s office released a statement clarifying the original statement.
“The politician’s remarks speak for themselves,” the statement read, before spending six paragraphs explaining what the remarks had actually meant.
A spokesperson later clarified the clarification.
“The clarification should not be interpreted as a clarification,” the spokesperson clarified.
Markets briefly reacted before apparently remembering they had other shit to do.
Meanwhile, another politician demanded an apology.
A third politician demanded an investigation.
A fourth called for unity.
A fifth accused the fourth of politicizing unity.
By late afternoon, social media users had divided the remarks into two completely incompatible versions of reality, each supported by an eleven-second video clip beginning and ending at different moments.
Experts urged Americans to consider the full context.
Nobody did.
Reporters later asked the politician whether the remarks had been misunderstood.
“Absolutely,” the politician replied.
Asked to explain the misunderstanding, the politician said the answer was obvious.
It was not.
At press time, the original comment had been largely forgotten after another politician somewhere else said something significantly worse, better, or approximately the same, beginning the entire process again.
This is a developing story.
Updates will be provided as soon as somebody says something about the thing that was said.
