Over at the Columbia Journalism Review, Steven Brill has a "story he'd like to see." Specifically: What's the deal with "the Hillary alternatives?" You know, those other people who might compete in a Democratic primary in 2016. This is worth some discussion. Among the reasons I can think of that speak to why there isn't block-to-block coverage of other potential Democratic contenders (besides maybe Elizabeth Warren, more on that later) are: 1) it's 2014 at the moment, and maybe people are showing a modicum of restraint, and 2) Hillary Clinton is currently "freezing the field." Which is a way of saying that she looms so large over the landscape as a potential frontrunner for the nomination, despite not actually campaigning, that it's inhibiting other candidates from doing the sorts of things they need to do to carve out a place in the firmament.
As the 2016 election approaches, it is likely that we will also be told that having a clear nominee early in the process, rather than a hard-fought, and potentially nasty, campaign for the nomination will be good for the party. This idea is intuitive and attractive, but it should be noted that it also completely false.