Yes, if course, he misspoke several times - and most of the so-called incidents of misspeaking, as Dana Loesch noted, came off of his teleprompter
The New York Times has long been the vanguard of creeping Socialism is the US. Bolstered by very competent writers and editors through at least the last seven decades, the Times has successfully conducted a slowly-but-surely done program of bringing Americans to accepting worldwide governance and Socialism as not only inevitable but necessary for all of us.
So loyal to the cause was the Times that, throughout the horrific rule of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia/Kampuchea, the atrocities were given a scant three reports in that newspaper - and these were brief reports. They were also hidden in the backpages. Things had not changed since they and others adherents of Socialism pretended that Stalin was not forcing famine upon the Ukrainians.
The Times also did a sickening volte-face on Poe Pius XII, on Christmas Day, 1941, the Times, referring to the "...darkness enveloping Europe.." described the Pontiff as the "..only ruler on the Continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all.". Note that this was long before anyone outside of Pius XII's massive yet (necessarily) clandestine operation that would save tens of thousands of Jews would hear of the work. When that information had become almost common knowledge(March 18. 1998), the Times opted to pretend that his actions did not exist (see a pattern?) and wrote of his "...failure to stand squarely against the evil that swept across Europe.". Yes, of course, the Pope should have shot his mouth off so that Hitler would order a military occupation of the Vatican and the incredibly successful programs to save Jews would be blown to pieces.
The organization that assures us that we are reading "All the news that's fit to print" has now hit a new low - if that is possible:
[OK let's start the article out with blaming Republican for fear-mongering about something that is actually happening - is that even possible to do?] "Congressional Republicans have stoked consumer fears and confusion with charges [charges? no one is disputing that it is happening.] that the health care reform law is causing insurers to cancel existing policies and will force many people to pay substantially higher premiums next year for coverage they don’t want. That, they say [more accusations - it does], violates President Obama’s pledge that if you like the insurance you have, you can keep it.
Mr. Obama clearly misspoke when he said that. By law [Obama's law that he repeatably stated would not cause this to occur] , insurers cannot continue to sell policies that don’t provide the minimum benefits and consumer protections required as of next year. So they’ve sent cancellation notices to hundreds of thousands of people who hold these substandard policies[Which means that Obama's repeated assertions/promises were not true]. (At issue here are not the 149 million people covered by employer plans, but the 10 million to 12 million people who buy policies directly on the individual market.)...."