The ads should run regardless IMO. Listen to what you all are saying. Let him change his mind on this issue and that will be enough? What about other issues? Isn't this about who the guy is, rather than what his vote may be on this issue or any other? You all want to buy (coerce) him just like everyone else. You created a PAC for effin sake! You are just playing the game. The game is what gives us people like Carney in the first place. People who don't care about truth or right and wrong... only what it takes to get and maintain power.

You really want to affect change? You really want "better Democrats"? Run the ads regardless -- get rid of the guy and anyone else who has considered voting for telecom amnesty. Their waffling on an issue such as this (an issue that has only one legitimate "side") speaks to who they are and their willingness to be bought. If he capitulates to you it will just be further evidence of that fact.

* My use of the term "You" is not meant to represent GG alone. It is of the inclusive variety... for anyone and everyone associated with these ads.

Or, maybe, we could expose him, which is what we are doing. I think the last option is the best option. Sorry that you were unable to see what was right in front of your face. -- Kitt

Seriously, how dense are you? There has been a discussion in this very comments thread about whether or not to still run the ads (exposing him) if he promises to vote against telecom amnesty. It appears some are advocating that, if he does reluctantly agree to vote against telecom amnesty, the ads shouldn't be run. There will be little to no "exposure" of the man if the ads don't run. That is what my post is addressing. Do you see it now?

There are going to be a lot of disillusioned liberals as they figure out that an Obama Administration isn't going to be about them. -- SanPasqualCA

You are obviously correct on the whole but there won't be a lot of disillusioned liberals here at UT. Primarily because there are very few actual liberals here at UT in the first place. From what I have seen, the few true liberals that comment here do realize how it will play out.

But I had the sense to realize that when one begs someone to 'please not run the adds' they have been exposed, no matter if the adds run or not. -- Kitt

Exposed to who? You? Glenn Greenwald? Your problem is that you live in an insulated little world where you think that if 5 or 10 people comment on an issue in a UT comments thread it means that everyone knows about it -- it has reached the level of "exposure." How many people, other than those involved in the "netroots" echo chamber, do you suppose will be exposed to this guy's failings if the ads don't run? Lots and lots, right? And that will cause him to recant and in all future dealings become something he wasn't in the first place, right?

You have the sense alright... the sense of someone stuck in an isolation chamber.

And how many would be exposed to these ads if they did run? -- GlennGreenwald

Does it matter? Is that the point? It isn't to me. Why solicit money from people, create the ads and then not use them? Keeping your powder dry?

Personally I think this ad campaign is a feeble attempt... a system perpetuating red herring that, given the big picture, will have little effect either way. However, my initial post was, believe it or not, an attempt to be supportive of what I believe is best you folks are capable of.... your attempt at "taking action."

Regardless, to answer your question, common sense dictates that the ads would certainly reach more people if they are used than if they are not, despite what nitwits like Kitt believe.

So now you are walking back your comments? I'm a "nitwit" because I believe that political action that is successful is a failure? -- Kitt

I give up. Perhaps someone else will be able to explain it to you in the Dick and Jane style verse that you require.

Deleting comments you don't like now is it? Well it is your place. Have fun with morons like Kitt as your audience Greenwald.

Do me a favor and ban my IP address while you are at it. Thanks.