Oh yes! For this line alone I love this story, "Of course, Clinton hasn't suffered much damage for her slips because they contradict (rather than reinforce) the media's preferred narrative.." Pay attention folks. What you read has little to do with truth, and a lot more with the preferred narrative. I've heard lots of explanations for this, most often ratings and ad sales, but few media watchers I know doubt it.

A small thing. in a way, this story reflects a greater truth. For that reason it is worth reading. It will never win a Pulitzer, but it does shed light on the person behild the personna.

Amusingly presented story about Hillary's policy gaffes. More telling than that description would suggest.

While this article may seem petty at first, these kinds of gaffes are hauntinly familar. Presidential candidates have armies of poeple supplying facts. It is up to the ability of the candidate to retain and recall.

I enjoyed this story, as it provided me with new information about Hillary Clinton. It wasn't just a rehash of some old arguments with opinion, but provided actual information regarding reaction to certain gaffes

Shows how information gets forgotten or disregarded if it runs counter to the standard narrative.

This story is remarkably biased and petty. It misconstrues a joke/remark that is about Helen Clarke's indestructibility as a comparison of her to a cockroach, it magnifies a mispronunciation of Medvedev, and it presents a second truthful remark (Putin having no soul) as a diplomatic slight, where Bush's original comment (about seeing Putin soul) is the real travesty. McCain misspeaks more in a single speech, and without actually telling truth. This article is exactly the sort of tainted reporting that your website should be warning people about.