The real star of this historic primary race has been how digital media with critical mass has changed the ways in which the electorate receives and synthesizes candidates, headlines and sound bites. This is the first presidential primary in which the relentless impressions in cyberspace are fiercely competing with each other--from campaign coverage to chat rooms.

The extraordinary race for the Democratic presidential nomination between a woman and a biracial man has seemed secondary, at times, to how the political process has been democratized and compromised by the Internet. It is as much about voters' response to the bombardment of images and words as it is about the candidates' track records and policies.

As this primary process winds down, think tank and research organizations are examining how virtual and more traditional media messages are shaping--as well as reinforcing and reflecting--public opinion of the candidates. They find the primary race has been as much about the candidates' character as the issues. But they struggle with the Internet's absorbing role in the process--and the extent to which well-heeled, charismatic or media-savvy candidates can have undue influence.

A new Pew Research Center study concludes that, contrary to popular belief, Barack Obama has not benefited from "a better ride in the press" than his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, but he has been more effective in "controlling his media message" of hope and change. Concurrent studies by PEW's Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University found that during the primary coverage, Democratic voters who were initially concerned about Obama's inexperience and youth have come to think of him as a charismatic leader and powerful communicator who is more prepared to lead the country.

Unfortunately, that is a triumph of brand marketing; it does not alter the reality of Obama's inexperience. Moreover, it reduces this critical leadership choice to a popularity contest: a matter that neither of these studies examined.

The most common source of these "narratives," or 39%, were the campaigns--both in the positive impressions the candidates wanted to project about themselves and the negative images they wanted to suggest about their rivals. That this was higher than the 30% found in a similar study four years ago demonstrates that candidates have been able to directly influence coverage in this viral media environment. Journalists--considered "authors" in the broadest sense--comprised 36% as the main source for these impressions.

The Pew Center studies found that while differences among the media were "minimal," notable standouts were network morning news' positive impressions of Clinton, and cable news networks' (MSNBC, CNN and Fox News) markedly different treatment of the candidates. Of the stories studied between Jan. 1 and the first week in May, 78% focused on the horse race, while only 7% were about policy, 7% about personal matters and 2% on the candidates' public records. The few substantive story line standouts beg some troublesome questions. Is more media better? Do more voices matter where it counts the most--examining the facts rather than the impressions? What are the positives and negatives of the political process in new media?

The Pew studies pay surprisingly little attention to the role of the Internet, about which they render fairly unremarkable observations. The lead stories of the five most popular news sites devoted even less attention than newspaper front pages to the campaign. The online media paid less attention to Clinton's so-called "unlikability," while paying more attention to Obama's co-called "wide appeal."

On the other hand, several in-depth eMarketer reports paint an entirely different picture: the blogosphere is a transformative force as a virtual watercooler for voters as well as an unofficial extension of the media. "Political blogs are exerting a profound influence on the electoral process," writes senior analyst Paul Verna. One-quarter of registered U.S. voters say they regularly blog, and 44% of adult Internet users read political blogs. Visiting candidates' Web sites, watching streaming video of candidates on YouTube and sharing political viewers on blogs and social networks are commonplace, although many voters (including youth) still turn to TV for the latest campaign news. Politics clearly has become social.

Although a majority of voters are online in this election year, online political advertising is "practically nonexistent," and television's mass-market reach continues to dominate the media mix, according to eMarketer senior analyst Lisa Phillips. Online political advertising may top $100 million of the estimated $4.8 billion that will be spent on all political advertising in 2008.

A new University of Wisconsin study concludes that Obama was able to outspend Clinton by a 1.6:1 ratio for the entire primary season--up through Tuesday's Oregon voting. His campaign has made unprecedented use of YouTube and other social networks, blogs and email to bring out the vote, especially among youth. Obama's campaign also forged new ground in using local search ads to target undecided voters, although searches conducted on Google for cat food, postage stamps, dental floss and clogged toilets continue to far outweigh results for all presidential candidates.

However, there remain vast differences among the candidates' use of interactive media, especially as perceived by voters who frequent there. "If Obama's a Mac and Clinton's a PC, McCain is also a PC...running DOS," observed a techPresident.com blogger.

"Television's ability to push candidates' messages out to the mass audience makes it the winner in this election year. On the other hand, the Internet is pulling voters into conversation and interaction with candidates and issues in ways that barely existed in the last presidential campaign," Phillips said.

I guess that makes us the winner.

This commentary is insightful. I recommend it to others.