As ridiculous as that sounds, consider the media’s treatment of Mitt Romney’s infamous gaffes. His “binders full of women” comment wasn’t merely awkward phrasing on the candidate’s part, it was much more significant than that. It meant something. As The Atlantic helpfully explained: “Romney’s turn of phrase wasn’t just a Tumblr waiting to be born, it was an insight into his views on the importance of promoting women.” Romney had “confirmed many people’s worst fears” about his attitudes toward women, the Guardian claimed. “It wasn’t just a gaffe: it was a Freudian slip, a filibuster and a falsehood.”

There was also his tactless remark about his lack of concern for the “very poor,” which was instantly stripped of its context and replayed in countless Obama attack ads. Pundits lined up to deconstruct (or un-gaffe) the gaffe. “[Romney] has claimed that he didn’t mean what he seemed to mean, and that his words were taken out of context,” Paul Krugman wrote. “But he quite clearly did mean what he said.” Andrew Riggio of Yahoo! News agreed. “Don’t make the mistake of thinking Romney just chose his words poorly,” Riggio warned. “His record and platform show his loyalty lies with his ultra-rich cronies and massive corporations — not with regular folks. It was already clear Romney wasn’t concerned with the poor.”

Wendy Davis can rest assured knowing that the media will treat her as it has Joe Biden, whose innumerable gaffes are consistently shrugged off as “Joe being Joe.”