I agree with the importance to Obama's election of the "new media" but it seems to me that, however it is delivered, it is the message itself that determines whether or not any media is effective in delivering it. If a candidate knows what it is he wants to do, what he believes is best for the country, then the message can be shaped to any media. But if the message itself is not attractive, the media isn't going to save it.

It is hard for me to see how the new media, even if used with skill, could have helped John McCain. He had no very exciting or persuasive message. Hilary Clinton might have, and perhaps a more sophisticated use of the internet could have helped her. But Obama, with his youthful approach and appeal, was a better subject for any media.

I don't think this is a chicken and egg problem that one determines what sort of message will go over. I hope not. The Presidency is too important to cater simply to what is popular. In essence, a good president is a good teacher and the new media is well suited to education because it is interactive. Obama's strength is his ability to discuss and persuade and to involve others in the discussion. That involvement is exciting to young people and the internet belongs to them.

I have less harsh feelings about the old media. Print is still important to many. But news today won't wait for the morning paper and the pundit's column. More and more good reporters are writing blogs away from the editor's red pencil and the confinement of space.
There are problems to all this and a lot of nonsense gets written simply because there is a lack of responsibility. But as the internet comes into its own, it is getting better and better. My hope is that it will provide information and force candidates to have a coherent and intelligent message. Without it, there just isn't much to say, and a candidate will have difficulty with a few sound bites and slogans. Nor, importantly, can money play the important role it does in canned TV ads.