I don't think this is helping your position at all. How is what she really said better? "You can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska." She was asked a loaded question about having insight into Russian actions as a result of proximity. There would be two good ways to answer the question. Say SOME of the things she said later (see below) about being in a state which has to have additional concerns about potential Russian military movements is option 1. The smarter option would be to say it wasn't really significant, the federal government and not my state government is responsible for ensuring the safety of all American people, including Alaskans. However, in the event of any necessary defense mechanisms, my particular knowledge of the state of Alaska could help inform the planning process.
Here - later defending it, she claims they have "trade missions" back and forth. She had never been to Russia. In fact, she had never met with any Russian officials or, for that matter, any other foreign dignitaries at any time in her political career.
But what I really don't get about you taking the time to bring up the misquotation is that you actually are bringing the true interview into the forefront, which brings context into play. Your 13-second clip doesn't show it, but the next thing she said is that she would favor bringing the Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, and that if that meant entering into a war with Russia she would be prepared to take that step as part of the NATO agreement. Obviously nobody in the military wants a war between the two biggest nuclear powers on Earth. You really think that the real interview, complete with "yeah, I'd go to war with Russia," is better than the "I can see Russia from my house" tagline? 'Cause I don't.