In an unsigned editorial, they opine that candidates like Ron Paul and Mike Gravel ought not be in the debates, because they’re just “clutter:”

If you tuned in to the recent Republican and Democratic presidential debates, you may have had the same reaction as many viewers looking at the crowded stages: Who’s that? The Democratic debate in South Carolina featured eight candidates, while 10 crammed into the GOP debate in California last Thursday. Voters trying to sort out their presidential choices aren’t helped by debates cluttered with the likes of Mike Gravel (hint: he’s a former senator from Alaska) on the Democratic side and Ron Paul (hint: he’s a libertarian House member from Texas) among the Republicans.

Of course, they’re also the only candidates on either side with substantial divergence from their respective party lines. Reason delivers a well-earned spanking to the Post for this absurd and anti-democratic position:

[T]here were plenty of candidates on those stages who really were clutter: They don’t have a chance to win and their messages are indistinguishable from the people who do have a shot. But it’s telling that the Post didn’t single out, say, Chris Dodd or Jim Gilmore. It singled out the two most anti-war and anti-establishment figures in the race, two men who clearly are alternatives to the frontrunners. Unlike the clutter candidates, Gravel and Paul said things at the debates that actually generated some buzz afterwards, on talk radio and online if not in the Post or with the Sunday-morning dinosaurs. I don’t know if they won any votes, but they did more than anyone else to add ideas to the conversation.

Word.