What I'm trying to say, is that ignorance should not be assumed to be malice. I mean the woman's clearly stupid, she doesn't know what a white nationalist is, and thinks it's a patriotic american who happens to be white (and pro trump, I guess?). When in fact, there's virtualy no difference between white nationalists and white supremacists. They're as bad as eachother.
What she's defending is people that fall under her understanding of the term 'white nationalist', which is flawed. And frankly, there's nothing wrong with that, if her understanding of the term were correct. I'd defend white americans who are patriots if people were confusing them for white supremacists.
Unfortunately she's wrong in her understanding, and thus comes off as 'defending white nationalists', even if that's not what she intended to do. But the article shouldn't really be taking advantage of her ignorance and using it to print a misleading headline that implies malice, should they?
I think there's a huge problem with interpreting it as taking advantage of ignorance, mainly because that assumes she deserves the benefit of the doubt. If you're an average schmuck ranting on his front porch wearing a beer hat, sure. But this person is a state representative. A public official at the state level with political and apparently social visibility. You don't get to hide behind a potential veil of ignorance or misunderstanding; it's your job. There is no excuse. When you make an incredibly awful and harmful statement like "white nationalists are just America-loving awesome dudes!" you deserve to be shredded for it. It's not just some minor factual misinformation, it's a huge insensitive perpetuation of rotten thinking, right after a deadly event involving said people. So yeah, sorry but I can't exactly sympathize with any opinion that she was painted in an unfair light, or that it's not her fault for being stupid, or whatever. And if her incompetence is the issue at hand then it should get her fired.