Today's editorial on having Democratic candidates debate isn't about West Virginia but it does illustrate another Intelligencer hypocrisy. It seems that the paper is all in favor of debates if it means that the likely Democratic candidate might be hurt by them but conveniently avoids the subject when it's applied to Republicans.

Today's editorial,"Letting Democrat Candidates Debate," tells us that the Ohio Democratic Party leaders have picked their candidate for U.S. Senate,Ted Strickland, without giving voters a chance to "weigh in."

There is another Democrat candidate for the nomination. He is Cincinnati Councilman P.G. Sittenfeld, and he wants an opportunity to debate Strickland.

Sittenfeld has proposed a series of six debates throughout the state, beginning in July. The Strickland campaign has been noncommittal.

Suddenly the Intelligencer wants debates before primaries. Hmmmm. I don't recall any editorials calling for Shelley Moore Capito to debate the other Republican candidates before last year's Republican primary. And where was the Intelligencer when Shelley ducked out of the second debate (which was scheduled to include all of the senatorial candidates) with her lame excuse that she had another commitment? Not only was there no editorial questioning her unwillingness to debate, there wasn't one word of coverage of the second debate in either "newspaper." (I know, why should the Intelligencer bother to cover a debate if Shelley wasn't there?)