We've laid out the reasons why DoubleClick employees should ditch Google — Google's Ivy League 'tude, its disdain for DoubleClick's accomplishments, its intentionally disorganized management, and its mediocre compensation. Now we want to know: With layoffs looming as a result of the Google-DoubleClick merger, do DoubleClick employees even want to work for Google? Let us know in our latest Valleywag poll.

We've been hearing that impending layoffs have DoubleClick employees fearing for their jobs after Google finishes its takeover. Why? Working there sucks. Ask any Googler. Below, four reasons why DoubleClickers should welcome their liberation from the Googleplex:

Ever since Google CEO Eric Schmidt promised "reductions in headcount" as part of the Google-DoubleClick merger, there's been much tension at the New York-based online ad network. Who gets to stay and pig out on all the new Googley perks? Who will have to hit the streets to face a slowing job market? The answers arrive April 1. It's not an April Fools' joke.

DoubleClick employees may technically work for Google now, but an ad in the DoubleClick Facebook network indicates that they're not real Googlers yet. "Hi DoubleClick!," the ad copy reads. "Please stop gorging on all our food. Maybe we won't fire you. Thanks!" The banner ad is below.

Google actually paid $3.24 billion for DoubleClick, not the $3.11 billion it originally bid last year. The $130 million difference comes from DoubleClick's cash and the exercise price of outstanding options. [Bloomberg News]

"Compared to the $6.1 billion Microsoft paid for aQuantive and the $3 billion Google paid for DoubleClick I feel we have done a pretty good job here." — AOL CEO Randy Falco, explaining that the fact that his predecessor, Jonathan Miller, spent $435 million to buy Advertising.com somehow makes up for the $850 million Falco just spent on Bebo. [Guardian]

Buried in CEO Eric Schmidt's blog post about the company's greenlighted acquisition of DoubleClick:

European regulators officially cleared Google's $3.1 billion DoubleClick acquisition. Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL will provide "credible" competition, the European Commission determined. When did "credible" become a synonym for "hypothetical." [WSJ]

European antitrust regulators will approve Google's $3.1 billion DoubleClick acquisition later this week, the Financial Times reports. Expect Google's top lawyer David Drummond to soon turn up the heat on Microsoft-Yahoo. Before the EU finally approved Google-DoubleClick, Drummond had reason to stay relatively quiet as the new company formed by Microsoft-Yahoo would obviously create real competition for Google. But with EU approval in hand, that incentive is finished. Last fall, Google CEO Eric Schmidt credited Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer with slowing down Google-DoubleClick in Washington and abroad. Think he isn't eager to set his own suits on the attack?

Henry Blodget, editor of Silicon Alley Insider, has established himself as a connoisseur of male beauty. And John Battelle is a handsome man. He's also chairman of Federated Media, the online-ad network and paid friend to bloggers, which is more likely where the attraction lies. Blodget has publicly documented on his New York-based tech blog his struggles to find an ad model that works. At last, he has: Toss his banners in Battelle's lap.

Forgive DoubleClick CEO David Rosenblatt. As his company's merger with Google drags on, he must not have gotten a chance to attend new-Googler orientation yet. Some day he'll learn to toe the company line. Google has forbidden employees to speak on the Microsoft-Yahoo deal, but today AlleyInsider caught Rosenblatt telling the crowd at the DeSilva+Phillips conference in New York that the Microsoft-Yahoo merger makes sense. At least for Microsoft.

Before Friday, recently coronated Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes had planned to get Time Warner out of the Internet access business entirely, lowering its stake in Time Warner Cable and somehow disposing of AOL's dialup business. He could then, at his leisure, consider an ad partnership between Time Warner's AOL and Microsoft or Yahoo, the Wall Street Journal speculates. But Friday saw Microsoft offer $44.6 billion to buy Yahoo. An analyst at T. Rowe Price said that news leaves Bewkes with one place to turn: Google.

Microsoft has been making Google miserable for a year over its DoubleClick purchase — and now, with Microsoft trying to buy Yahoo, it's payback time. That's the true meaning of top Google lawyer David Drummond's statement about the Microsoft bid. He's not saying that the deal is anticompetitive: He's just asking questions. Expect Google to keep asking, and asking, and asking — all the way up and down Capitol Hill, where the search giant has been steadily building up its lobbying presence. If Microsoft thought its last antitrust battle was torture, it hasn't seen anything yet. Drip, drip, drip.

Answer: No. Don't wait around for Google to swoop in and put Yahoo out of its misery. Larry and Sergey can't even kill DoubleClick, a much smaller company they've been trying to acquire for almost a year now. Beltway busybodies are already talking up an antitrust investigation into Microsoft's bid. Now imagine Google in place of Microsoft. See? You're getting smarter already.

CNBC's Jim Cramer, host of Mad Money, dropped his predictions for 2008 in New York magazine this week. Along with some safe bets like "oil goes up" and "Goldman Sachs makes a lot of money," Cramer throws out some unlikely but not off-the-wall predictions about Verizon and Apple. But then when he gets to Google, he goes off the deep end.

The FTC has approved Google's $3.1 billion acquisition, ignoring claims of conflict of interest that could have slowed down the process, like FTC chair Deborah Platt Majoras's marriage to a lawyer whose firm represented DoubleClick in the matter. And that wasn't the only scandal. Google cash paid, indirectly, for a lavish summit in Aspen that three commmissioners attended.

Federal Trade Commission regulators voted 4-1 to approve the Google-DoubleClick merger. According to the WSJ, the commission ruled that the deal is "unlikely to substantially lessen competition." Google announced the merger eight months ago, but antitrust and privacy concerns brought by Microsoft slowed the deal in Washington. In the end, Microsoft, with its $500 million Viacom deal as well as its $240 million investment in Facebook, likely convinced regulators that the online-advertising business is as competitive as Google always argued.

Microsoft will pay Viacom $500 million over five years to serve ads and distribute content for the media conglomerate, according to reports. What does that mean? Besides Microsoft-sold ads on MTV.com, expect to see Nickelodeon clips on MSN, Laguna Hills downloads on your Xbox 360 console, and so on. Viacom's old advertising service was DoubleClick. We're guessing that relationship turned sour when Google — which faces a $1 billion copyright infringement suit from Viacom — announced its intent to purchase DoubleClick for $3.1 billion. (Photo by AP/Mark Lennihan)

Despite the fact that her husband is a partner for a firm that represents DoubleClick, FTC Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras will not recuse herself from the Google-DoubleClick merger case, she announced today. I, however, am happy to recuse myself. But nobody's asked. [Beyond Binary]

Two consumer advocacy groups say FTC chairman Deborah Platt Majoras has no place judging the merit of their privacy complaints stemming from the proposed merger of Google and DoubleClick. Majoras's husband, John M. Majoras, works as an antitrust lawyer at Jones Day. DoubleClick is a firm client. That's a conflict of interest, say the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the Center for Digital Democracy.