Andy passed this along to me on Sunday and I missed it. From WaPo:
Campaign Will Get More Intense, Clinton Says
Oh yeah? More intense? Look at this:
In Iowa, the polls show what is effectively a three-way tie among Edwards, Clinton and Obama. Befitting her status as the national front-runner, Clinton focused her speeches here on slamming President Bush, never mentioning the other contenders by name, even though they are now criticizing her in almost every appearance.
The "national frontrunner," the inevitable candidate, is tied three ways in Iowa. That is a huge failure on her part -- that is, if you accept the Hillary locomotive line. In fact, not going negative is going to be a problem for Hillary. If either Obama or Edwards picks up Iowa on account of her inability to defend herself, then that could be a major stumble for a machine the press has been all-too-ready to praise as well-oiled.
But what about this story was notable? The hed makes no sense, news-wise: Campaigns get more intense as they move forward. That's a fact. That Clinton is aware of it is not newsworthy. In fact, the story that seems the most interesting is found in this line:
Voters in Iowa have been so concerned about her vote in connection with the Iraq war that she now declares, at the start of every speech, that she will end the war if she is elected, although she does not detail how.
This is what will get more intense: scrutiny over her record. But why are journalists waiting for people to ask questions at rallies rather than taking initiative and investigating Hillary's (or any other candidate's) record? Any senator's voting record is a gold mine of material, yet time and again, lazy journos would rather hop on the campaign bus and listen to the latest press grab.
Guys. Seriously. Work harder.
