About 10 days ago, Google CEO Eric Schmidt opined in a press conference about the growing financial crisis: “My guess is that the drama is in New York and not here.”

Bad guess, as it turned out. Really bad guess, actually.

Yesterday, Google (GOOG) –one of many tech companies hammered after the House rejected the bailout plan to revive the economy–got slammed badly, along with Yahoo (YHOO), Microsoft (MSFT), Apple (AAPL) and many others.

And, just like that, tens of billions of dollars in shareholder value were lost in the Wall Street meltdown.

Today, most of those stocks made back a lot of what they gave up as the markets took a break from heedless panic and replaced it with worrisome hand-wringing while putting their hopes on some sort of Congressional action (as if business-impaired politicians could actually be the saviors of the situation).

But the experience should have given Silicon Valley a bracing wake-up call that it is in no way immune to the situation and that its businesses will likely suffer along with media and all sorts of other consumer companies if the credit crunch is not assuaged relatively soon.

While I predict the third-quarter results–coming in the next few weeks–for tech and Internet firms will be a lot better than analysts are expecting right now, the fourth quarter will be decidedly glum, especially for most companies dependent on advertising of some sort for their business.

“I have never seen it this depressing,” said one major exec at a Web property to me about trying to sell advertising online in this bleak environment, just as the medium has been getting increasing uptake.

And, while it is by no means Armageddon, and trends over time clearly point to online and away from traditional media, it is also not a time to be blithe.

In the same press conference, Google’s Schmidt noted: “It’s business as usual at Google.”

Even for the mighty Google right now: As if.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

I suppose that’s the reason Microsoft is not loaded for bear and headed back down to Sunnyvale to make another play for Yahoo right now.

Not even after Jerry Yang orchestrated activist investor Carl Icahn’s defenestration, by inviting him on the board at Yahoo (YHOO), where he will be 100 percent silenced.

Not even after the stranger-than-fiction shareholder vote miscount (oops–we thought no meant yes!).

Not even after Yahoo stock’s consistent flirting-with-the-teens price.

Not even after its second-quarter results made it clear that it’ll be an uphill battle for Yahoo management to achieve the aggressive financial plans outlined when the Internet company was fending off Microsoft’s takeover bid.

So while opportunity is surely knocking for Microsoft (MSFT), especially if it wants to reach its stated goal of competing with Google (GOOG) in the online space, the software giant prefers not to answer the door right now.

Sources close to Microsoft’s thinking say the company is waiting for the right time, when Yahoo’s stock price is even lower and when Wall Street completely gives up on management, to figure out the next move.

Instead of acting, according to sources, and taking more flak for those actions, the whole brain trust up there is taking a breather and biding its time.

(In fact, many top Microsoft execs are on vacation, which is why August is a good time for Yang–who is himself headed to China for the Olympics–not to worry about a hostile attack.)

The strategy? Sitting in the grass–waiting, watching and making plans.

But, in truth, Microsoft cannot really make plans–except for the vague we’ll-keep-coming-and-coming in the online search and display business motto–until it decides the best way to reach its intended goals.

The first order of business, of course, remains the selection of a digital czar, which was promised by Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer after top exec Kevin Johnson quit unexpectedly several weeks ago.

As BoomTown previously reported, the top inside contender is SVP Brian McAndrews, who came to Microsoft via its pricey $6 billion acquisition of aQuantive.

And Microsoft’s future-of-software guru Ray Ozzie remains a favorite choice of the troops.

But, sources said, Ballmer is still interested in a possible high-profile outsider coming in to shake things up.

The problem is, most such execs see the job for what it is–a potential tar baby that will only muck their careers up and produce no easy victories.

“Who wants the headache?,” said one outside exec who has been contacted by Microsoft. “While there might be upside there, the downside is much more significant.”

Thus, sitting very still for now might, indeed, be Microsoft’s best choice. It certainly is a lot less messy.

“Is that all there is, is that all there is.
If that’s all there is my friends, then let’s keep dancing.
Let’s break out the booze and have a ball,
If that’s all there is.”

Peggy Lee sang it best about troubled times in the classic song “Is That All There Is?”

But, dancing and making a video about dancing is obviously something that elevates Yahoo (YHOO), which is no small thing in this tough period for the iconic Internet company.

In the video below, Yahoo’s Yodel Anecdotal Blog Editor Nicki Dugan (whom BoomTown is immediately offering a job as AllThingsD.com video chief) takes the well-known dancing-fool Internet celeb Matt Harding of the Where the Hell Is Matt? Web site and places him all over Yahoo for 33 dancing sessions.

The video was recently shown at the company’s all-hands meeting, and it is simply delightful to see Yahoos looking happy simply by tripping the light fantastic.

I think activist shareholder Carl Icahn should make Harding one of his picks for the Yahoo board. (Icahn was officially appointed to the board yesterday, and his two board picks will be revealed Aug. 15.)

Highlights of the video of Harding dancing at Yahoo include Co-Founder David Filo’s infamous mess of a cube, a video conference jig with the team in Burbank, doing a sitting-down boogie with President Sue Decker, having a tango with Yahoo’s Purple Cow and a hip-shaking visit to “Frenemy Territory” at Google.

Best of all, of course, is a do-si-do with Yahoo Co-Founder and CEO Jerry Yang, who seems to be channeling an odd combination of Tony Manero in “Saturday Night Fever” and Barney the purple–how perfect!–dinosaur in his dance stylings. (Enter a caption contest here related to the picture above.)

Happily, this is the kind of dancing it is enjoyable to see Yang doing, because the two-stepping, shuffling and tap-dancing he is going to have to do to stay in power–after the much less sanguine shareholder vote this past week–is going to be much less fun to watch.

Here’s the video from Yahoo (all credit to Dugan and Yahoo) and the wonderful “Dancing 2008″ video that Harding did all over the world (I dare you not to smile):

Yesterday–in a patented playbook move–some top Microsoft execs didn’t miss a chance to slap around Yahoo over its shareholder vote debacle, letting it be known to industry insiders (on the very loud QT, of course) that the Internet company knew full well that its biggest investor, Capital Research & Management, was going to vote a large number of shares against it.

Thus, it was just a hop, skip and a leak before their sentiments got hand-delivered to the doorstep of BoomTown HQ.

In essence, Microsofties are arguing that knowledge of a major investor’s dissatisfaction should have prompted Yahoo (YHOO) to question its unusually positive voting results at its annual meeting on Friday and ask the outside voting tabulator to recheck its numbers before officially releasing them.

As it turned out, the tally by Broadside Financial Solutions, an outside firm that conducts the tabulating for investors, was highly inaccurate related to the number of shares withheld by investors for particular board members.

As reported Friday, for example, Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang only had 14.6 percent of shareholder votes withheld, with 85.4 percent voting for him, which was better than the year before.

The new results saw Yang’s disapproval more than double what was previously reported, rising to 33.7 percent.

This huge delta was due to errors in counting the no votes from funds owned by Capital Research, which holds an overall stake of about 17 percent in Yahoo.

“They had to see the discrepancies,” said one source close to Microsoft’s (MSFT) thinking. “Yahoo was hoping no one would notice.”

While BoomTown is careful to consider the sources here–the collapse of Microsoft’s takeover bid for Yahoo has left quite a bit of acrimony between the pair–they actually might have a point.

Sources at Capital Research certainly agree, saying they unequivocally told Yahoo leadership that they were going to withhold a substantial number of votes from certain members of the company’s board.

Those targeted included Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang and Chairman Roy Bostock (pictured here), as well as several other board members.

“They knew our intention,” said one source at Capital, referring the many news stories about, in particular, the disgruntlement of Capital Research Global Investors fund head Gordon Crawford. “Everyone knew.”

Capital Research Global Investors–one of two funds separately managed at Capital Research–owns 6.5 percent of Yahoo, according to recent filings, and its Capital World Investors fund owns 9.8 percent.

As this column previously reported, Capital Research’s proxy committees had recommended to its various funds that they withhold votes from Yahoo leadership.

But sources familiar with Yahoo’s thinking said that while the company was surprised by the better-than-expected vote last Friday announced after the meeting.

They noted that while opposition was a “little light,” Yahoo could not tell exactly which votes came from where.

Yahoo sources acknowledged that while the company was well aware of the unhappiness from Capital Research, they received no definitive communication–such as a letter–outlining its exact voting intent.

They also assert that Capital Research’s many custodians who handled the voting for the investment giant’s many funds made have made the voting more difficult to parse.

In addition, Yahoo sources said that Capital Research waited until late in the week to vote, which also added to the confusion.

The new correct vote did not impact the re-election of Yahoo’s current directors, although the much lower numbers for leaders like Yang and Bostock are a significant sign that they are actually operating from a much weaker position.

It is a weakness that a company like Microsoft, as well as other critics calling for Yang and Bostock’s ouster, could take advantage of in the coming months, especially if Yahoo stumbles in any way.

In any case, Yahoo was not at fault for the tabulating errors made by Broadridge, mistakes which were corrected today.

Sources at Yahoo said the company did not think there were problems until Capital Research called Yahoo and Broadridge about problems in the vote.

“We double-checked their results,” said a source close to Yahoo about the wrong numbers the company received from Broadridge Friday. “But mistakes got made.”

That, in fact, is the definitive understatement of this whole mess.

Broadridge Financial Solutions’ corrected tabulation of the vote at the Yahoo annual meeting on Aug. 1, without the “truncation errors,” came out and, it seems, shareholders are actually mighty irked at Yahoo leadership.

Most glaringly, the new result shows Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang’s disapproval more than double what was previously reported, rising from 14.6 percent votes withheld to 33.7 percent. Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock saw his shares withheld rise from 20.5 percent to 39.6 percent.

Yang (pictured here), who has been under fire for his management of Yahoo (YHOO), is likely to now endure yet another round of questioning about whether he should stay in his job in the wake of this massive show of disapproval by investors.

Here is part of Yahoo’s press release, with the correct and incorrect tables below:

Yahoo! Acknowledges Tabulation Error by Broadridge

Jerry Yang (893,055,602/85.4%; 153,039,982/14.6%)

Here’s the full statement (below) from the outside firm, Broadridge Financial Solutions, that tabulated Yahoo’s recent shareholder vote.

Bottom line: An underreporting of shares withheld for certain directors, which the Lake Success, N.Y., shareholder services firm is calling an “isolated incident” and also a “truncation error.”

That sounds painful.

And it is likely Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang will feel much of that pain, as sources said the shares are largely those that were withheld from him by disgruntled shareholders.

While the mistake will not change the vote’s overall outcome, in which all current Yahoo (YHOO) directors were re-elected, it will surely make the no-vote tally worse than first reported for many directors, and underline more clearly the increased investor disappointment directed at Yahoo leadership.

As reported Friday, for example, Yang only had 14.6 percent withheld, with 85.4 percent voting for him, which was better than the year before.

A Yahoo spokesman said the company was redoing its results, based on the new information, and would release the new numbers soon. The Internet company did not do the vote tabulation.

The examination of the results was prompted by an unusually positive Yahoo shareholder vote, when it did not seem to include the withheld votes of one major Yahoo shareholder.

Thus, Capital Research & Management asked Broadridge for a recount of its votes.

The problem centered on how shares were tallied in the Yahoo annual meeting, specifically related to a group of votes withheld by Capital Research Global Investors.

That fund owns almost seven percent of Yahoo, and its head, Gordon Crawford, had recommended withholding votes from Yahoo.

Here is the statement from Chuck Callan, Senior Vice President Regulatory Affairs at Broadridge:

On August 4, Broadridge was notified by an investor of a potential discrepancy in a reported vote at the Yahoo Annual Meeting on August 1.

On August 4th Broadridge notified Yahoo’s Inspector of Elections and Tabulator of the problem, and a revised report was issued on August 5th.

All Yahoo needs now is for former Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris to show up and start recounting votes.

It could happen, given all the crazy characters who have been drawn to the much-beleaguered Internet company like a magnet, in 2008.

It’s almost as if there is a voodoo curse on Yahoo (YHOO).

So, you didn’t think the digital gods would let it have more than one weekend of good news, did you?

No, they will not, it seems.

After the annual meeting last Friday, which went off without a hitch and, more importantly, without an expected major shareholder vote against the company’s management and board, you could feel a palpable easing of tension among Yahoo leadership and its exhausted PR team.

By Monday, the Yahoo shareholder kerfuffle–in essence, one major shareholder of Yahoo has asked for its outside tabulator of investor votes at the annual meeting for a recount–had landed with a thud.

The problem is how shares were tallied in the Yahoo annual meeting, specifically around whether a group of votes withheld by Capital Research Global Investors was not counted, counted incorrectly or even voted incorrectly by the investor.

Parent company Capital Research & Management confirmed that it had asked Broadridge Financial Solutions, a Lake Success, N.Y.-based financial services company that does securities clearing and processing, to investigate whether those votes were correctly counted on behalf of its Capital Research Global Investors fund.

Capital Research Global Investors–one of two funds separately managed at Capital Research & Management–owns 6.5 percent of Yahoo, according to recent filings, and Capital World Investors owns 9.8 percent.

Capital Research Global Investors is run by legendary media investor Gordon Crawford (pictured here), who has become disenchanted with Yahoo over the last year.

Because of that, sources close to the fund’s thinking said Crawford had recommended that the fund withhold votes from CEO Jerry Yang and some other board members.

It’s not clear whether that actually happened or, if it did, whether the votes were tallied properly.

That’s because Yang, for example, only had 14.6 percent withheld, with 85.4 percent voting for him.

The votes withheld seemed low to Capital, considering Crawford’s large stake and how many shareholders have been deeply unhappy with Yahoo management this year.

Instead, overall results for Yang and the Yahoo board were mostly better than last year.

Everyone is investigating, of course–from Capital Research to Broadridge to Yahoo, which does not do its own tabulation, although it has hired an outside proxy solicitor to manage the process–to try to find out what’s what.

It is likely there’s a nonsinister reason for the voting results.

And there might be a lot of possible explanations, but I am partial to blaming the confusion that followed after activist investor Carl Icahn pulled his proxy fight a week before the meeting and made nice with Yahoo.

Unfortunately, Icahn’s golden proxy ballot was already in the hands of investors, many of whom might have voted for it and then had that vote essentially voided.

Wrote one BoomTown reader and Yahoo shareholder:

“I hold 23,000 shares of YHOO. I had 17,000 on the date of record. I voted to ‘withhold all’ … I think twice. Then I voted for all of Carl’s team. Now I have learned that the Carl votes did not count and a day AFTER the annual meeting I received my new ballot. I wonder how many other people were disenfranchised??? Who can I complain to?? Is this how Jerry got his support??”

Another commenter on the site also wrote:

“As a stockholder, I was curious *which* of my proxy letters actually was counted–I received four. One was from Icahn, the other three were from Yahoo. The last of which arrived today, August 4th. Does this strike anyone as odd?”

Actually, Yahoo’s twisting journey passed odd a long time ago and is now headed toward “The X-Files” territory.

(So let’s all triple-hope Yang’s upcoming trip to China for the Olympics goes smoothly. Have a good time, Jerry, we’ll be back here counting!)

There is a mini-tempest brewing over how shares were tallied in the Yahoo annual meeting last Friday, specifically around whether a group of votes withheld by one of Yahoo’s major shareholders was not counted, counted incorrectly or even voted incorrectly by the investor.

According to sources close to the thinking at Capital Research & Management, the proxy committees for its two large funds that hold a significant stake in Yahoo (YHOO) recommended last week that they withhold votes specifically from CEO Jerry Yang and from various board members, such as Chairman Roy Bostock, to register disappointment with their performance.

Thus, the investment fund confirmed it had approached outside vote tabulator Broadridge Financial Solutions, a Lake Success, N.Y.-based financial services company that does securities clearing and processing, to investigate whether those votes were correctly counted on behalf of its Capital Research Global Investors fund.

Capital Research Global Investors–one of two funds separately managed at Capital Research & Management–owns 6.5 percent of Yahoo, according to recent filings, and Capital World Investors owns 9.8 percent.

Capital Research Global Investors’ investor Gordon Crawford has been vocal about his disappointment with Yang and the board at Yahoo.

And sources close to the fund’s thinking said Crawford recommended that it withhold votes from Yang and some other board members.

Capital World Investors has been less critical of Yahoo, but sources said it was also leaning toward voting at least some of its stake against the company’s leadership.

But Yang, for example, only had 14.6 percent withheld, with 85.4 percent voting for him. Bostock fared worse, grabbing only 79.5 percent of the yes vote, with 20.5 percent withheld.

That would mean, assuming a large part of Capital Research’s votes to withhold were counted, that only a few other investors voted against Yahoo.

This is highly unusual in a year when many shareholders have been deeply unhappy with its management.

But, in fact, overall results for both Yang and Bostock were actually better than last year.

I called Broadridge for comment and am awaiting a response.

Yahoo does not do its own tabulation, which must be done by a third party, although it has hired MacKenzie Partners as a proxy solicitor to manage the process.

Said a spokesman in response to my inquiry about the situation:

“The independent inspector of elections certified the results of the election and Yahoo! accurately announced those results. Yahoo! did not participate in the execution of the votes and was not a party to any errors which may have been made either by a voting institution or a proxy processing intermediary acting on behalf of banks, brokers and institutions.”

While the recommendations of the proxy committees at Capital Research are apparently not binding on some individual directors of smaller funds that make up the larger ones, they typically follow along with the overall decision from the top.

They might not have in this case, of course, or they might not have voted the shares at all, although it is also possible they could have voted incorrectly or that the votes were not tallied properly.

This is better than a hanging chad!

Another unusual issue around the voting: The amazing drop in the number of shares that were voted at all.

In 2008’s shareholder tally (see below for individual director numbers), only 75.8 percent, or 1,046,095,584 out of 1,381,008,701 possible share votes, were cast.

There were 1,205,435,371 votes cast in 2007 and 1,276,175,601 in 2006, a much higher percentage of overall votes.

Sources at Yahoo speculated that this could be due to the fact that most investors vote automatically in an uncontested election and were waiting for an outcome in the proxy fight between activist investor Carl Icahn and Yahoo.

After that issue was settled right before the annual meeting, though, some investors might not have even bothered to vote.

More to come, but here are the pertinent stats on the Yahoo vote as of Friday:

Roy J. Bostock (Shares for: 832,023,657/79.5 %; Shares Withheld: 214,071,927/20.5%)

Ronald W. Burkle (849,373,291/81.2%; 196,722,293/18.8%)

Eric Hippeau (948,862,579/90.7%; 97,233,005/9.3%)

Vyomesh Joshi (971,594,650/92.9%; 74,500,934/7.1%)

Arthur H. Kern (814,871,925/77.9%; 231,223,659 /22.1%)

Robert A. Kotick (967,044,818; 92.4%; 79,050,766/7.6%)

Mary Agnes Wilderotter (964,939,727/92.2%; 81,155,857/7.8%)

Gary L. Wilson (856,006,576/81.8%; 190,089,008/18.2%)

Jerry Yang (893,055,602/85.4%; 153,039,982/14.6%)

After its annual meeting today, as its board members had lunch together, Yahoo released the results of its shareholder vote and it seems we will still have CEO Jerry Yang to kick around some more.

Yang garnered 85.4 percent of the shares to stay on as a director of the Internet company, with 14.6 percent withheld.

While having almost 15 percent of your investors think you are not worthy is not good, it is also not nearly as bad as it could have been.

In fact, overall results are actually better than last year. Thus, being attacked by Microsoft (MSFT) and activist investor Carl Icahn has had a dulcet effect on Yang’s image.

Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock fared worse, grabbing only 79.5 percent of the yes vote, with 20.5 percent withheld.

Yahoo (YHOO) stockholders dinged three outside proposals: a pay-for-superior-performance principle for executive compensation, the establishment of policies on Internet censorship, and the creation of a board committee on human rights.

The board also officially put Icahn in the seat vacated by Activision (ATVID) CEO Robert Kotick (whose vote was among the best, ironically, with 92.4 percent for and 7.6 percent withheld).

It also expanded the board to 11 from 9, but will not announce the two new members until Aug. 15.

Former AOL head Jon Miller, who was one of the likely picks, is apparently being blocked by Time Warner via a noncompete agreement. Miller was bounced from AOL some years ago.

Miller was called directly by Time Warner (TWX) CEO Jeff Bewkes last night, sources said, and was told by Bewkes, “We’ve changed our mind.”

More on this idiotic development from the AOL owner next.

Until then, here are the pertinent stats on the Yahoo vote:

Roy J. Bostock (Shares for: 832,023,657/79.5%; Shares Withheld: 214,071,927/20.5%)

Ronald W. Burkle (849,373,291/81.2%; 196,722,293/18.8%)

Eric Hippeau (948,862,579/90.7%; 97,233,005/9.3%)

Vyomesh Joshi (971,594,650/92.9%; 74,500,934/7.1%)

Arthur H. Kern (814,871,925/77.9%; 231,223,659 /22.1%)

Robert A. Kotick (967,044,818; 92.4%; 79,050,766/7.6%)

Mary Agnes Wilderotter (964,939,727/92.2%; 81,155,857/7.8%)

Gary L. Wilson (856,006,576/81.8%; 190,089,008/18.2%)

Jerry Yang (893,055,602/85.4%; 153,039,982/14.6%)

OK, now we’re cooking with gas at Yahoo’s annual meeting in San Jose, as various shareholders–mostly small ones–come to the microphones to give Yahoo a piece of their mind.

The room has filled up more, about one-third to one-half full, with the top Yahoo (YHOO) leadership arrayed at a table up front like an Italian wedding.

First up, longtime Yahoo activist shareholder Eric Jackson asked Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock to step down, noted that Yahoo had overplayed its hand with the Microsoft bid, wondered about Yahoo President Sue Decker’s time problems (too many outside boards) and questioned the worth of Yahoo’s deal to sell an asset in Japan.

Yahoo, of course, did not agree with Jackson! At all!

“No,” said Bostock about stepping down, also noting that he was woefully underpaid for his board service, given all the activity over the last year related to Microsoft (MSFT).

Next up, a shareholder asked about Yahoo’s poor performance compared to Google (GOOG).

Yang’s answer: We’re trying!

Next, a shareholder supported Yang, noting that Yang did co-found the company. But then he kind of suggested Yang perhaps leave the company for a “cathartic” time.

The same shareholder also compared Bostock’s defense of Yahoo’s behavior with “a girlfriend who is trying to convince the world that she initiated the breakup.”

That made Yang smile.

Later, Bostock added: “I would not compare Yahoo’s relationship to Microsoft to a romantic one.”

The next question was related to China and Yahoo’s thorny history there. Yang had addressed the issue earlier and added that the company was working hard to improve its efforts related to human rights.

While one former employee and shareholder called Yahoo “rude” not to entertain more questions from investors, another shareholder called Microsoft “a green-tentacled monster,” I think, which provoked laughs and clapping.

A question was then asked about advertising and competing with Google-owned DoubleClick. Decker noted that Yahoo’s Web-based approach is better.

One shareholder noted the lack of women on the board (there is one), and a shareholder justifiably complained that only one-third of the directors did not show up and also not enough of the board owns stock, such as Ron Burkle (who was apparently in Europe at another commitment.)

Perhaps of everything that went on at the annual meeting, which was mostly nothing, perhaps that was the most salient point of all.

Could the new and improved Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang actually manage to beat back the proxy fight being waged against him by activist investor Carl Icahn?

It increasingly looks that way, with only 12 days to go until Yahoo’s annual meeting on Aug. 1.

But exactly which Yang will be running Yahoo (YHOO), if he does win, is probably the most important question shareholders need to ask.

Will it be the seemingly energetic Yang of the past two weeks, invigorated by the battle with Icahn and his new best friend and Yahoo foe, Microsoft (MSFT)?

Or will it be the other Yang?

Because for months and months now, since Microsoft waged its takeover bid on the Internet company he founded, the woe-is-me vibe emanating from Yang has been working the last nerve of anyone paying attention to the proceedings.

Given that this vibe was combined with a kind of cave dweller PR strategy of not speaking publicly–other than releasing an indignant, noncapitalized letter every now and then about the situation–some questioned Yang’s ability to gin up the kind of passion needed to bring Yahoo back from its current straits.

Even before the Microsoft parry in February, the ho-hum mood had trickled down to the troops, causing lower morale, too many departures and a general feeling–deserved or not–that Yahoo has been circling the drain for much too long under its current lackluster leadership.

And, let us not forget the drippy stock performance either.

And while BoomTown, especially, has to give both Yang and also Yahoo President Sue Decker much credit for appearing onstage at our sixth D: All Things Digital conference in May, most who saw the appearance (we posted the whole thing last week, starting here) were not blown away by the performance, considering it too enervated.

What then, do we make of the current round of pugnacious, dare-we-say, passionate, and, as it seems, pretty effective moves Yang has made this week to ward off the attacks of Icahn and Microsoft?

I should have gotten clued-in to the shift when Yang actually made contact with me on July 9, after being out-of-touch for many, many moons, presumably due to pique over my 100-day Sacred Cow Countdown (he started it!).

As it happened, I was in Seattle visiting a lot of Pacific Northwest companies, including Microsoft, when he called.

After our discussion, I published these choice quotes from Yang in a post on July 10, titled “Jerry Yang’s Pledge: Not on My Watch”:

“I think handing over the company to Carl Icahn for the express purpose of hoping he can negotiate a complex deal with Microsoft is a big mistake for shareholders. This is particularly true since Icahn has no plan B and therefore will have no leverage and will be dealing with Microsoft from a position of weakness.

“Furthermore, Microsoft’s interest in Yahoo has been inconsistent at best and they refuse to even put a firm proposal on the table. Their motivations are suspect and there is simply no good reason to think they will actually show up at the end of the day. And then what will shareholders be left with? A weakened, Icahn-controlled Yahoo.”

Then Yang went into overdrive over that next weekend as Yahoo managed to make a new Microsoft search proposal–which was really very, very generous–look radioactive by loudly declaring that Icahn’s taking over of Yahoo was crazy-glued to the plan.

It was not, but no amount of Microsoft spinning could undo the damage of what looked like a goofy power play by Icahn and Microsoft.

That was followed at the end of last week by the news that Yahoo had convinced one big investor, Bill Miller of Legg Mason Capital Management (who has always been a supporter of Yang and especially, Decker), to back the current board.

Legg Mason owns about 4.4 percent of Yahoo.

While not saying it was final, Miller noted that it was his intention to stick with Yahoo’s leadership, adding that he also wanted Yahoo and Icahn to settle their differences before the annual meeting.

Of course, Miller still tried to get Microsoft back to the table, noting, “If Microsoft wants to acquire Yahoo, it can make the terms and conditions of its offer public.”

One can hope, Bill! (Actually, as I have written many times, Microsoft should make that move if it really intends to compete against Google.)

But, best of all, was Yahoo sticking a big fat banner on its much-trafficked home page Friday, alerting its users–most of whom were really just minding their own business and trying to get their daily horoscopes.

Nonetheless, in a box that flashed various outrages about the proxy fight, Yahoo linked to a presentation that pretty much called Icahn a Luddite. It included a quote attributed to him from The Wall Street Journal: “It’s hard to understand these technology companies.”

You can say that again, Carl!

And Yang did say it again in video message to Yahoo employees, noting, “We’re taking full advantage of the power of our network to remind our stockholders why voting for Carl Icahn’s board of directors is a bad choice.”

Ah, there is nothing like a technically clueless billionaire as an enemy to get Yang’s blood boiling!

Apparently, that has helped employee morale too. This weekend, I have heard from several execs contemplating leaving, tired of waiting for the 12th shoe to drop, who noted that more passion from Yang was helping.

“People feel like he is showing some strength, which you never see,” said one. “It sounds corny, but we want someone we believe in.”

Well, we’ll see if institutional investors believe, after they get a recommendation midweek from the large proxy-advisory service ISS Governance Services, which Yang and other Yahoo execs and board members visited last week to make their case.

That will come one day after Yahoo releases its second-quarter earnings on Tuesday, which I am sure will be decent, as they just have to be, considering the hubbub around Yahoo.

(And you can be sure Yahoo CFO Blake Jorgensen is working overtime this weekend, adding in all he can to make the picture as pretty as possible.)

It’ll be a big week for Yahoo, as usual, made bigger if Icahn does not mount an effective offense, such as releasing a cogent plan of his own and showing he has some managers in the wings who can run Yahoo if he were to get the reins.

Which Yang is not showing any signs of giving up anytime soon.

I fully expect Yang to get even more hopped up this week with more speeches to employees, more visits to shareholders and perhaps even more calls to the press. (BoomTown is waiting by the phone!)

Of course, this is all just show. And while it’s a good one, as I said, the most important thing everyone has to keep in mind is what this all means after Aug. 1.

So I have some questions for Yang:

Does he have the energy and vision and, most important, management chops, to really move the needle at Yahoo and make the kinds of changes it needs?

And what are those changes? More of the same direction (more social, more open) or perhaps a much more radical focus on core businesses like content and communications?

And what about search, a losing game as Yahoo inevitably will be crushed between Google (GOOG) and Microsoft? And what about fending off that pair’s new focus on display advertising, where Yahoo does excel?

Will Yang, if he does not think he has what it takes, be willing to step aside? And does that mean Decker will become CEO, or will he bring in new outside execs who have not been part of the problems of the past?

I could go on and on, of course, but it pretty much boils down to one key question:

Is the Yang who acts like he can win really here to stay?