For the Post-Gazette Editorial Board, the next four weeks will be a time of sacrifice and self-denial. It has nothing to do with Lent or the Atkins diet. It's all about candidate endorsements.

		Tom Waseleski is editorial page editor of the Post-Gazette (twaseleski@post-gazette.com, 412-263-1669)

For the editorial writers at this newspaper, the period before any election might as well be the high holy days. That's because we treat our tradition to meet, question and compare candidates in contested races as a solemn duty.

Readers, of course, have their own reactions to Post-Gazette endorsements, but few people know how we arrive at them. Consider this a quick tutorial.

Some newspapers make endorsements without grilling the candidates and by merely announcing support for the contender who fits their editorial views. Other papers refuse to endorse at all, believing that the voter's choice is too private and personal to be corrupted by the advice of an editorial. (If that's so, why do some voters clip the Post-Gazette's endorsement roundup before each election and take it into the voting booth?)

Judging by their editorials, some newspapers are ideologically wedded to candidates of a single party. At the Post-Gazette, however, life, politics and endorsements are more complicated than that. For instance:

In last fall's general election, the Post-Gazette endorsed 19 candidates in contested races, after interviewing them and their opponents. Many readers may be surprised to know that we backed 10 Republicans and nine Democrats.

Although the Post-Gazette has endorsed Democrats in presidential races for decades, it has supported many Republicans at the state and local levels. We backed Jim Roddey twice for Allegheny County chief executive. We endorsed Tom Ridge twice for governor. We backed Dick Thornburgh for governor (twice), but not for U.S. Senate.

We've supported Arlen Specter and the late John Heinz for the Senate, not to mention other Republicans seeking statewide offices. We've backed Republicans for the Legislature and County Council, and I suspect we'd endorse a Republican for City Council, too, but finding a qualified candidate in that political category is a tall order.

Regardless, our job in the endorsement interview is to discern the better choice for office. Since our readers don't have a chance to meet every candidate (there are almost two dozen candidates in contested races in Allegheny County next month), it's up to editorial writers to communicate, as best they can, how the contenders match up.

Generally, we see the candidates together. That means for an hour here at the Post-Gazette, two Democrats, for instance, vying for the party nomination on April 27 for a legislative seat will sit shoulder-to-shoulder answering questions about their qualifications, relevant issues and the conduct of the race. Next fall, we'll interview the Democratic winner and the Republican counterpart in advance of the general election.

To be sure, this format makes some candidates uncomfortable, but it tends to keep them honest. Sometimes sparks fly and the contenders resort to insults; other times the session is tame and they leave with a grudging respect for each other.

No matter how it turns out, the interview is not the only basis for endorsement. The editorial writers also gather information from the Post-Gazette archive, check data like an incumbent's voting record, call sources in the community who know the candidates and tap the knowledge of our news reporters. There are no hidden agendas.

The editorial board, which includes the editorial writers and the publisher, then discuss the candidates in each race and try to reach consensus on whom to endorse. Among the factors that drive the decision are: the degree to which the candidates agree with key editorial positions, their knowledge of the issues, readiness for the job, life experience and the extent to which they'd be effective advocates for the Pittsburgh region. We also have to follow our gut.

You'll notice that incumbency is not a factor, nor is political party. Incumbents do have an advantage because having served in office gives them a built-in knowledge base, even if they've been a so-so public servant. A more depressing candidate is the one who challenges a lackluster incumbent but is himself woefully not ready for prime time.

That type of match-up makes for a difficult call and can produce a more qualified, nuanced endorsement. But since the voter can't choose "none of the above," neither should we.

One candidate who gets our backing may be surprised that it's not a roaring acclamation; one who fails to win our support may be stunned that we showered her with encouragement for the future. Endorsements are not always black or white. We need to convey our viewpoints accurately -- hot, cold or tepid.

That's why there should be more to an editorial endorsement than ideology. It begins with an interview, that runs through a comparison, that bears further checking and is viewed through the prism of what this newspaper seeks for the advancement of the Pittsburgh area.

Not until all of that is done can a candidate be endorsed by the Post-Gazette.

The measure of our success is not the election of those we support. It's whether we've stimulated the public's thinking and encouraged them to go to the polls. How they vote once they're behind the curtain is entirely up to them.