Nothing is misspelled, and the grammar all seems in order, but something seems wrong with an article headlined "Dueling Appeals On Taxes From Obama, Clinton" that never explains what the dueling tax appeals are. We hear something about Obama wanting more rebates (how much? for who? when?) and we're told that "Clinton has her own tax-cut proposals that benefit the middle class" (how do they work? how is middle-class defined? how do they benefit?), but neither proposal is ever described. Instead, we get a lot of horserace stuff, like "Obama appeared to acknowledge that Clinton's populist economic message is finding a receptive audience in Indiana" and "he is hoping that victories here and in North Carolina would build pressure on Clinton to exit the race for the party's nomination." I bet if you asked The Washington Post whether they covered policy debates, they'd point to articles like this one to prove that they do. But using policy as a way to write a horserace story doesn't really count.
