Yesterday the leading Democratic Presidential candidates took questions from bloggers at the YearlyKos convention. Beyond demonstrating the power of the so-called "netroots," (but remember that in 2004 Howard Dean was the darling of the blogosphere for all the good it did him in the primaries), it's not clear how this debate helped potential voters make up their minds. Not clear to me, at least, because I didn't watch. Admittedly, I'm not a complete political junkie, but I suspect that no more than 2-5% of voters follow the campaign a lot more closely than I do, and I'm already over-saturated. Edwards takes a veiled shot at Obama as being too conciliatory, hoping to portray himself as the outsider. Obama wants to fuel the perception of a two-person race, and so he ignores Edwards and goes after Clinton, making himself the agent of change. Clinton tries to solidify her front-runner status as above the fray, while still taking a shot or two at Obama. Richardson touts himself as the real get-out-of-Iraq-now candidate. Gravel stares at the camera. At least that's what I'm guessing happened.
Anyway, I feel bad that as a blogger I missed my chance to ask the candidates questions. So, in case the campaigns are taking follow-ups, here's mine: If you could amend the Constitution, how would you amend it? Answers that say "I wouldn't do so unilaterally because I believe in the Article V mechanism" will be disqualified for fighting the hypo. Assume that any amendments you propose would be passed by Congress and ratified by the States on the strength of your persuasive skills as President.