If a figure makes a statement that is taken out of context, she will go back to the beginning of her statement and reiterate, pointing out the significance of what she said and how it was originally intended v. how it was received. This can be looked at one of two ways:
1) She is backtracking.
2) She is clarifying.
Both of these statements are true. To further explain a mis-understood or -interpereted argument, you must "backtrack" in the sense that you have to begin back at the start of your original argument. You're also clarifying, taking something that was muddy or incomprehensible and making it clear, or trying to.
But "backtracking" brings to mind the deer-in-the-headlights, the stuttering, sweating fucker who's been caught and is now desperately searching for a way out. Clarifying is what an eloquent mind is able to do, through the power of metaphor or just a reduction in speed.
It's all bullshit, but I think the accusation of back-tracking is a bit flawed, it's suggesting that you knew this person's absolute meaning straight-off. Or at least, you read someone's interperetation of this person's meaning, and you really trust it, so certainly it MUST be true.