You may remember a couple of months ago when Sen. Barack Obama lectured Americans that "we can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK."

So imagine our surprise yesterday when we saw a large crowd gathered around two large Chevy Suburban SUVs outside the Mayflower Hotel in Washington and learned that none other than Sen. Obama was there and about to depart in one of the SUVs. Of course, we quickly called back to the office, which is only a block away, and got our trusty video camera so we could document the event.

Turns out Sen. Obama was at the Mayflower for a $10,000-a-photo fundraising lunch, according to the Washington Post. So while he recently chided Americans to give up their SUVs, not eat as much as they want and turn off the AC, it appears that he yesterday enjoyed a fancy lunch with fat cat donors, then rode away in an air-conditioned SUV. (Which, in fairness, we point out is probably encouraged by the Secret Service because it's so much safer than compact cars like the Prius. Which is precisely why Sen. Obama shouldn't support policies that lead to higher gas prices and make it harder for average American families to own SUVs if they want the safety they provide.)

In any case, here's our video from the scene:

[Blog post cross-posted from Ed Frank @ Americans for Prosperity.]

Tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. EST, Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech will be webcast live using UStream.TV , a YouTube-like site for live video. The speech will play live on MittRomney.com, Romney's profile page on UStream, and just like a YouTube video, it's a Flash widget that's embeddable directly on your blog. Bloggers wanting to create a sticky experience for their users can embed the player in a post starting at 10:30 a.m. and invite readers to give their play-by-play reactions in a comment thread.

Obligatory full disclosure: I am an advisor to UStream, and am really pumped by the possibilities of live, free online video for politics. Just like online video pre-YouTube, live web streaming was "broken" pre-2007. Doing live video on the Internet was out of reach for all but the most the elite clientele. It cost thousands of dollars to stream a single event, rent the sat truck, hire the crew, etc. Now, it can be as a simple as a Webcam + EVDO card -- or any combination of a streaming-enabled camera and Internet connection.

In another innovative use of the medium by a conservative, Michelle Malkin has already used the service to hold live, interactive conversations with HotAir readers. (Each UStream video features a chat room where users can pose questions and talk with each other.) Your speech, conference, seminar or other live event can now be sent out live over the Internet -- and you don't have to be a Presidential candidate either.

Kudos to Mitt Romney's team for being the first Republican campaign to jump in.

UPDATE: Just realized there are 12 questions on the front page of 10 Questions, so the cutoff for getting asked is 1,165 net positive votes before midnight. I'm at +826 right now. The heat is on. Vote below.

The 10Questions question period is rapidly drawing to a close. Here is my question for the Presidential candidates. It's a simple and direct one -- one that forces candidates to articulate whether they'll reduce the size of government, and if not why not. I need you at least 908 1,165 of you to vote for it on 10Questions.com before the deadline at midnight tonight.



Here's the situation. The top 10 questions right now are stacked with you-name-it left-wing cause -- net neutrality, terrorist surveillance, medical marijuana, and "is America unofficially a theocracy?" There's a real chance that the Democratic candidates who participate will not be asked a single tough question that forces them to articulate their beliefs or address an unfamiliar issue.

Early reaction to my question is 2-to-1 positive, but as of now, I need 908 1,165 new net positive votes to make the top 10 -- and likely more than that to overcome whatever negative votes that are likely to materialize in the next seven hours. I know that more than 908 1,165 people will be reading this post, so I know we can do this. It's an audacious goal -- no other question has surged this far this fast. But it's worth the 5 seconds of your time it takes to vote to make sure the candidates are forced to articulate their views on limited government.

And Democrats are not the only ones who need to answer this. In case you haven't noticed, Republicans haven't done a real good job of shrinking government when they've been in office. It's time to hold all the candidates accountable.

Please vote.

Other Republican campaigns and their supporters are trying to make an issue out of Fred Thompson's innovative use of Web video to communicate his message. See the snark in New Hampshire GOP chairman Fergus Cullen's color commentary:

"Maybe the times have changed, and the Webcast and his celebrity are enough. Maybe he and his tactics are the wave of the future," Cullen said, adding a stinging comparison between Thompson and the failed 1985 launch of a new Coca-Cola formula. "Or maybe he's the New Coke."

My Man Mitt called it the "Max Headroom" campaign back in June:

However, this is one of the critical questions in political campaign history. Will a predominately virtual campaign make the same impact as pressing the flesh?

I remain convinced that it will not and cannot.

And even John McCain got in a subtle dig at Thompson's supposedly absent, "virtual" campaign in the last debate:

SEN. MCCAIN: Well, I think that’s a decision that Fred should make. Maybe we’re up past his bedtime, but the point is -- (interrupted by laughter). You know, one thing I know about New Hampshire and I know well is that the people of New Hampshire expect to see you. They expect to see you a lot, and they expect to see you at townhall meetings and at places all over this great state of New Hampshire. And they expect to see you before they make up their mind.

Now, maybe this has more to do with the privileged position of the early states, but it comes across as hostile indifference towards the medium of the kind we saw during the YouTube debate fight. Nobody had a problem when Hillary and Obama announced online, so why is it an issue when a Republican does the same? Regardless of which candidate you support, we should not be creating incentives against running outside-the-box campaigns -- especially with all that we are up against next year.

These critics rely on the straw man argument that Thompson plans to run the majority of his campaign through Web-based contacts, something Fred's folks have labored pretty hard to knock down. Look at Fred's rollout this last week. A 15 minute Web video followed by five days of retail campaigning in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Fifteen minutes versus five days. That's an out-of-touch Web-based campaign?

Presidential candidates need to be on the road constantly. What's wrong with giving them a chance to talk with the rest of us in between stops, or using live video to bring the early state action into February 5th computer rooms? Technology shouldn't necessarily mean the demise of the early primaries, but it does enable the candidates to market themselves in a national primary situation, something they just won't have the money to do on TV.

Fred's critics are scapegoating his use of the Internet, and making the Republican Party look technophobic in the process. As we showed recently, that kind of message is no longer appreciated, and all the incentives are now on the side of an aggressive Internet strategy. I mean, does anyone seriously think someone is going to vote against a guy in 2008 because he makes aggressive use of the Internet?

Hillary Clinton will be able to raise at least $150 million on the Internet to drown us in the General. We should give Fred credit for trying. We're going to need the thousands of new online donors and volunteers he's recruited through this, even if he's not the nominee.

This seems to be what a lot of so-called "Fred Heads" have been waiting for. Fred's latest web ad mashes up his role in the Hunt for Red October with his presidential run. I'll reserve my thoughts for the comment thread; I'm eager to hear what others think.

Here's Fred's announcement. It's 15 minutes, pretty long for a Web video, but surprisingly enough, he held me through most of it.

What do you think? And how would you compare it to those that came before?

Today the National Republican Congressional Committee unveiled a user-generated project that takes giant steps towards developing a new media platform that gets people across the country more involved online. The NRCC is excited about the direction our party is moving and excited about getting you, the voter, involved. In order to be successful in 2008, we are asking for help - and thus the reason that the NRCC has introduced the "Your Direction" project.

"Your Direction" will be an on going effort for the next several months to get voters across the country engaged in the Republican online movement. The best ideas and the best solutions come from the American people - so that's why we are reaching out to them. This user-generated contest comes in two phases.

Phase One: The Slogan Contest

We need a slogan -a brand for our new media outreach initiative. And we want online activists to pick it. In one sentence, we are asking people what our message should be. Then we are having them explain to us how they came about choosing that slogan. We are looking for a message that encompasses our online movement and our commitment to work together to win back our majority.

In order to get more people involved we will be working with local blogs around the country to make sure their readers are active and engaged in the "Your Direction" project. We are also currently working with Townhall.com and their readers and have already sent a survey to them asking for their ideas. Thus far the response from the Townhall readers has been overwhelming. In less than 8 hours, we had nearly 9,000 slogan ideas, and they continue to come in by the hundreds.

After we compile our results, we'll begin to post them on our site, our blog, and other blogs around the country. Voting will take place at NRCC.org and then when the contest wraps, we'll be working with Ed Morrissey of Blog Talk Radio to unveil the winning slogan.

Phase Two: Video Contest

The slogan contest is just the beginning of the "Your Direction" project. After the winning slogan is voted on online, the NRCC will roll out a first ever national committee video contest based on the winning slogan. The video contest, which will encourage folks of all generations to get involved, will be a competition to see who can creatively express the new slogan in an originally produced web ad. Stay tuned for details!

Do you want to take a stab at coming up with our online slogan? If you do, click here, we can't wait to see what you come up with.

A tipster passed along this link to the Pew Internet & American Life Project's first major report on online video. [Full report -- PDF]

The report offers credible, empirical support for something everyone reading this space has known for a while: online video is big, important, and something "we" need to be doing early and often.

You can dig in to the report to find interesting nuggets, but here are a few that jumped out at me which I'll be including in my next PowerPoint presentation:

As apparent by the chart below, the online video community and culture - though used widely by Gen Nexters - plays a growing role for those over the age of 29. Everyone online is receiving links, sharing links, and calling over their colleagues and friends to watch a video that they've received. You can also see that the minority of users who rate and comment on videos are Gen Nexters (18-29) which likely explains why most of my videos have only a few ratings and comments -- even when I ask for them incessantly.

Another key point which really jumps out at me:

Amateur vs. Professional: What do users prefer?

Most online video viewers prefer professionally-produced video over content “produced by amateurs.” However, the segments that do express a preference for amateur content or say they like both genres equally is sizable, and those who are among the most coveted viewers by advertisers (men ages 18-29) are the most likely to express a preference for amateur video.

Overall, 62% of online video viewers say that their favorite videos are those that are professionally produced, while 19% of online video viewers express a preference for amateur content. Another 11% say they enjoy both professionally-produced video and amateur online video equally.

Overall, another great and helpful report by Pew. Make sure you print it out and give it to the next Republican politician you see.

On the sticky note write, "Here's proof that there's a Revolution happening."

I'd just as soon not bring this up, as I've probably had beers with most of the people involved with this topic. But I feel that the cause of good, solid reporting on what Presidential eCampaignmeisters is worth setting the record straight.

Jonathan Martin brings up MittTV as an interesting example of Mitt going around the "media filter," a la HillaryHub. This isn't the first time I've seen MittTV signed out in writeups of Romney's website, and every time I have to ask, "Why?"

What is MittTV? It's Mitt Romney's videos on his website, draped in a custom player and a zingy name. But who isn't posting videos to the Web and YouTube? A number of candidates are even using their name and "TV" in the branding! Here's BarackTV and Hillary TV. Now, Romney's folks have been more aggressive about posting news clips of their guy to their YouTube channel, which is just smart strategy, but that's about the only differentiator to this that I can see.

Meanwhile, another worthwhile Romney effort, the Sign Up America campaign which signed up 30,000 supporters in 24 hours, didn't get as much play in the media. But over the long run, it's stuff like this -- the boring game of inches of recruiting volunteers and donors -- that has the greater impact.

As we've seen with the Hillary video this week, online videos are only growing in popularity. Campaigns aren't alone in creating videos for the Internet. Every industry is scrambling to add a video component to their overall strategies, but who's watching?

Earlier this week, Magid Associates released survey results on the demographics of online video viewers:

Overall, among 12- to-64-year-old Internet users, daily usage of online video rose by 56% over the last year. This year, 14% reported using online video every day--up from 9% in 2006. Weekly usage also rose 18% over last year, with 52% of the Internet users viewing online video once a week or more, compared with 44% in 2006.

In all age groups, Magid reported, males are more regular viewers of online video. Among females ages 18 to 24, weekly use of online video is 53%. The population that has the lowest rate of weekly online video usage is older women. Among females 55 to 64 years old, 39% report using online video weekly.

When 50% of Internet users are watching videos weekly, it's a strong arguement to somehow fold this tactic into the web.

But is this a fad? If the iPhone takes off, there's a good chance that YouTube will remain a top web destination for while. Furthermore, YouTube is increasing globally. A Guardian article yesterday highlighted YouTube's expansion in Europe on the web and mobile devices.