2008’s first presidential primary is over, and the initial results are in.

No, not Iowa, New Hampshire, or Nevada, or even the so-called “money primary”. I’m referring to a new rite of presidential initiation:

The Web video Primary.

Candidates (or candidates-to-be) Clinton, Brownback, Obama, McCain, Edwards, Richardson, Romney, Vilsack and others all either announced their candidacies via Web video, or have already made extensive use of the medium. While not the first Web video breakout moments – the 2004 innovations by Bush-Cheney, MoveOn.org, and DNC and the “Macaca” video in 2006 were the true breakthroughs – they nevertheless signal that Web video has gone mainstream. They also offer an interesting insight on the candidates’ Internet strategies, and campaign strategies in general, as an analysis shows:

Sam Brownback: Brownback’s Web video announcement, posted on his site last weekend, opens with guitars strumming and Brownback walking up to the camera in a living room lit by electric candles, with a painting of George Washington over his left shoulder. He appears affable as he talks about his life and credo – “Work Hard, Pray Hard” – and his agenda focusing on restoring America’s families and “culture”, as well as pushing for a flat tax, term limits. He concludes: “I’m not running for President to change the world. I’m running for President to change America.”

Hillary Clinton: Senator Clinton’s video was well produced – perhaps overproduced, by Web video standards, using TV-style jump cuts to move from wide shots of Hillary to close ups. Her first Web video chat was a breakthrough, but a very guarded breakthrough. The décor, decorum, and post-show classical music seemed more upper east side Manhattan than middle America. The “conversation” in the end came off as supremely controlled. Clinton received wonderful coverage for her videos – and in that sense won the primary – but her use of the medium is not quite up to the attention it has received.

John Edwards: Edwards was the first of the 2008 contenders to use Web video for his YouTube “pre-announcement” back in December. In the video, Edwards wore jeans and a work shirt while young denizens of New Orleans’ 9th Ward cleaned up Hurricane Katrina flood damage in the background. If the background is the message, Edwards video, though very simply produced, painted an interesting picture. And in contrast to many candidates, Edwards video was posted on YouTube. Edwards has likewise made use of other tech and Internet tools, including MySpace, Flickr and Facebook, and text messaging.

John McCain: Senator McCain’s exploratory committee has a barebones site with a single video: McCain delivering a speech to GOPAC last November. It may make political sense, but it’s an uninspired production choice – the clinking silverware and glasses of the crowd are louder than McCain or the background music, suggesting that McCain may have a harder time winning the rap attention of GOP conservatives than of the media.

Barack Obama: Obama’s big Web video break wasn’t his pre-announcement last week. To be sure, his video announcement worked very well, and his bio spot likewise is well done. But Obama’s biggest Web video moment to date were the YouTube postings of his Monday Night Football appearance. There, he playfully hinted at a presidential run, only to declare not his candidacy, but his fealty to the Chicago Bears. Call it a “candidate sneak”. His humming of the MNF’s theme song at the end of the segment was his first and wildly successful effort to reach out beyond the Democratic base to Joe Six-pack – and YouTube magnified it to the tune of a million extra views.

Bill Richardson: Richardson made history over the weekend, too, though without little fanfare, when he posted YouTube announcements in English and Spanish.

Tom Vilsack: The first candidate to announce was also the first to use candidate to use Web video, including posting his Daily Show appearance. Notably, Vilsack began by posting his videos on YouTube, but is now only posting flash video on his own site – perhaps deterred by some of the shrill personal attacks commentators initially made on his YouTube account.

So who won the Web video primary?

The winner is… Mitt Romney.

MittTV, Romney’s video site, is the model for what candidate Web video will be like in the future. It features a well-designed and user-friendly interface with a ton of content: a bio/vision video, campaign events, policy speeches, media appearances, and even campaign outtakes. While Romney’s staying away from YouTube, MittTV does allow users to embed his videos on their website. Finally, the Romney video effort has already succeeded in defusing it’s first “macaca” moment. After a from Romney’s ’94 Senator campaign surfaced of Romney in which he voices support for abortion rights and gay rights, Romney himself responded within eight hours with a video of his own rebutting the video – a far cry from the flat-footed response George Allen made to the video that sank his campaign.

Whichever candidate is credited with having the best Web video program, it’s safe to say Web video is a winning technology for everyone – not just the candidates, but for the public and for the media.

The candidates win because they were allowed to communicate directly to supporters and voters – and on their terms. The voters win because they have virtual access to the candidates – the only “filter” being the candidates themselves. Even reporters win, to the extent they are able to track candidates and campaigns – without necessarily taking up residence in Iowa and New Hampshire.

So what’s the upshot? Are candidates losing control of their campaigns – or regaining it from media consultants? Are Web video “gotcha” video clips just a new version of “gotcha” journalism? Will Web video smart up or dumb down democracy?

Time will tell. In any case, as Sen. Clinton said at the end of her Web video announcement – “I have a feeling this is going to be very interesting.”