Earlier today, BoomTown reported that Yahoo was poised to name a few new top execs at its Silicon Valley HQ.

But the company has also hired a new director of public affairs in the nation’s capital.

After I queried the company, Yahoo (YHOO) confirmed that it has tapped Amber Allman, a vice president at 463 Communications, for the job. She has extensive tech experience.

“We are very pleased that she is coming on board,” said Nina Blackwell, senior director of global public affairs, who will be Allman’s boss. “She will be a very valuable member of the team.

Yahoo’s last public affairs rep in D.C. was the most excellent Tracy Schmaler, who left Yahoo earlier this year.

At Yahoo, she worked on everything from human rights issues in China to the failed takeover attempt by Microsoft (MSFT) to Yahoo’s also-botched effort to do a search and advertising deal with search giant Google (GOOG).

Ironically, Schmaler is now deputy director, Office of Public Affairs, at the Justice Department, which is currently scrutinizing Yahoo’s search and ad partnership with Microsoft.

Ah, the revolving doors of Washington, D.C.!

Carl Icahn, the activist billionaire investor who made such a noisy fuss in his quest to force management and other changes at Yahoo, is taking a much quieter leave from the Internet giant’s board.

He apparently has told the Yahoo (YHOO) board that “there was not a need at this time for an activist investor” and that he has a lot of other companies he invests in to focus on.

That’s true, of course, given a spate of troubled investments that Icahn is dealing with.

But here’s BoomTown’s quickie analysis: Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz completely ignores him.

In fact, Bartz often has gone out of her way to take little gibes at Icahn since she got the top job in January, whether it’s to say he called her too much or that he could try to fire her if he did not like the job she was doing.

For example, she just dissed him publicly in a piece in Forbes, tossing off a saucy insult:

“Icahn is just another shareholder. What’s he going to do, fire me?”

But Yahoo was cordial to Icahn as he departed, even if a lot of people at the company who had battled him were likely thinking: “Don’t let the door hit you on the way out!”

“Carl has been an important member of our Board and has helped us through some significant transitions,” said the Yahoo statement. We are all grateful for his active role shaping the future of Yahoo! and wish him well in all his endeavors.”

Icahn in the second board member to leave under Bartz’s tenure.

Frontier Communications (FTR) CEO Maggie Wilderotter announced in late September that she was stepping down from the board by year’s end.

It will be interesting to see who–if anyone–will comes on board as a director and, of course, if there are more departures. After the departures of Wilderotter and Icahn, there will be 10 directors.

(Here is BoomTown’s No. 1 pick still in that regard.)

In taking his leave, Icahn praised the recent search and online advertising deal Bartz struck with Microsoft (MSFT), noting that it will “provide great long-term benefits, the potential of which many still do not understand.”

Nice final toss to try to spike the stock, Carl! But the MicroHoo deal, which has yet to be approved by regulators, was likely cold comfort for him.

Icahn sank large sums of money in Yahoo with hopes of a big score via the hostile takeover attempt by Microsoft at a price upward of $30 a share.

After that deal tanked, Icahn has seen his stake decline in value.

He sold 16 percent of his Yahoo shares in late August, leaving him with a 4.5 percent stake, or about 63 million shares.

It is also not clear today if Icahn intends to unload more of the stock.

In 2008, he couldn’t buy enough, scooping up the stock at much higher prices.

After mounting a proxy fight–including the lobbing of a series of poison-pen letters–against former CEO and co-founder Jerry Yang and his management team, Icahn got board seats for himself and two others (John Chapple and Frank Biondi) in July of 2008.

As Digital Daily’s John Paczkowski put it perfectly then:

“Having so persuasively argued that Carl Icahn is a doddering Luddite with no articulated plan for Yahoo other than the company’s sale to Microsoft, Yahoo has taken the logical next step and appointed the activist shareholder to its board of directors.”

At the time of the fighting, Yahoo used a quote from Icahn to insult him: “It’s hard to understand these technology companies.”

In a way, that is a pretty accurate description of Icahn’s long wrangle with the Silicon Valley icon.

And, while some might not agree with my take, this is the way the Yahoo world ends for Icahn: Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Here is Icahn’s entire letter to the Yahoo board:

To the Yahoo! Board of Directors:

I am hereby tendering my resignation as a director of Yahoo! to take effect immediately.

When I joined the Board, the company was in a state of turmoil. In the period since then, we have all worked together to achieve much for the Company, most notably bringing Carol on to be the CEO and then consummating the search deal with Microsoft. I am proud to have played a role in both these decisions. Carol is doing a great job and I believe the Microsoft transaction will provide great long term benefits, the potential of which many still do not understand.

I don’t believe that it is necessary at this time to have an activist on the Board of Yahoo! and currently, my attention is focused on other matters. As a result, I do not presently have the time that is necessary to devote to the business and affairs of Yahoo! required if a board member is to fulfill his fiduciary duties to the shareholders

Again, I want to thank the members of the Board for acting so responsibly during my tenure. I look forward to maintaining my relationship with each of you.

Sincerely,

Carl Icahn

As BoomTown reported earlier today, Yahoo and Microsoft have struck a search and online advertising partnership that sources said will be announced tomorrow.

But it is eminently instructive to look at the deal that Microsoft had offered Yahoo almost exactly a year ago, which was rejected in favor of a competing bid by fellow Silicon Valley Web rival Google (GOOG).

The Yahoogle deal, of course, failed, after regulators looked askance at a partnership of the No. 1 and No. 2 search players.

The new deal between Yahoo (YHOO) and Microsoft (MSFT), according to sources, certainly seems a lot smaller than the one offered last June, although there might be a surprise yet to come.

But so far, according to sources, there will be no upfront payment to Yahoo, with the focus on a revenue share between the two companies, as had been expected after Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz said she was looking for “boatloads of money” in any deal with Microsoft.

That might not be as forthcoming, since sources also said Yahoo would still sell search ads on its sites and Microsoft’s too, although Microsoft’s AdCenter advertising sales technology will be underneath it.

Doing its own search ads means the cost savings to Yahoo will be less than previously estimated, but it also solves its longstanding issues about control of relationships with advertisers and also of consumer data.

This makes the deal much less significant than ones previously envisioned, which included Microsoft taking over both Yahoo’s search and its text-based search advertising businesses in exchange for large payments and guaranteed revenue.

As it is, according to those familiar with the deal, the software giant still is getting an important coup, since its Bing search technology will be used on Yahoo sites. And Yahoo will be able to focus and innovate better on its strengths, which are in advertising and content.

Whatever is unveiled, there might be goodies yet to come, some of which might be similar to what Yahoo was previously offered by Microsoft.

As I wrote in June 2008:

Well, according to people familiar with Microsoft’s thinking, the goody bag Yahoo turned down was considered by the company to be substantial.

It included, according to Microsoft sources:

• A cash offer of $1 billion for all of Yahoo’s search assets, including its paid and algorithmic search. But Yahoo would also be allowed to innovate in new arenas, like visual search. (This low bid was, most agree, kind of a direct insult to Yahoo techies.)
• A commercial deal to serve Yahoo’s search and search-ad business with a guaranteed economic return that was higher than what Yahoo currently earns with its Panama system.
• An offer to buy up to $8 billion of Yahoo stock for $35 a share from investors like Carl Icahn and others.
• A guarantee to allow Yahoo to keep all data collected from search and search ads, in order to help its display ad business.

Overall, sources said that Microsoft estimated that the deal would improve Yahoo’s operating income by $1 billion.

The smaller Google deal has a lot less in terms of bells and whistles, but allows Yahoo to keep its search business intact.

Microsoft sources say execs were stymied by Yahoo, which offered to sell the entire company to Microsoft up until three days ago.

But, as Yahoo has even said, Microsoft remained steadfast in its lack of interest in a bigger deal, after it walked away a month ago from its botched takeover attempt.

And it is still not interested, even with the pressure a Yahoo-Google partnership now presents.

“Yahoo might still dream of a big deal and hope they can win this game of chicken by doing this deal with Google,” said one person familiar with Microsoft’s thinking, about the possibility of Microsoft now making another offer. “But the big deal is done.”

Even if Yahoo’s stock declines even more precipitously? “It’s no longer a price issue with Microsoft,” said the source. “The company has moved on.”

The source, like many, predicted intense regulatory opposition to the Yahoo-Google hookup from the software giant now.

No kidding!

“It’s war,” said another source. War is a nice way of putting it.

After all that, it finally looks like it’s peace–the terms of which will likely be highly scrutinized in the days ahead.

Several years ago, when I once asked Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer if the software giant was ever going to be able to catch No. 1 Google in market share in the increasingly lucrative search arena–despite years of trying and billions in investment in its Web businesses overall–he said something I shall never forget.

“We don’t actually have to catch the leader,” said the pugnacious tech leader. “We just have to surpass the No. 2 to have a great business.”

At the time, Ballmer meant Yahoo (YHOO), of course, and his intention was clear to me. While it was probably well-nigh impossible to get into the pole position Google (GOOG) is in, Microsoft could begin an attack if it could crush Yahoo first.

Easier said than done, of course, with little movement in share so far–even after early labored and expensive organic efforts, a failed takeover attempt to buy Yahoo and endless but still fruitless talks about a partnership with the Internet giant.

But now with a very credible and consumer-friendly revamped service called Bing, which is getting a big slug of marketing money, Microsoft (MSFT) might actually have a product that at least has a better chance to gain market share.

While by no means certain or lasting, early results from surveys are promising and–combined with distribution deals the software giant recently signed too–could give Microsoft the kind of momentum is has long needed.

This is obviously not good news for Yahoo, which will doubtlessly be the one losing market share if it is to be lost.

Nonetheless, some think Google might be more impacted since its users make a conscious choice to use it and Bing is a direct alternative in this regard, while Yahoo’s users use search when they are using other parts of the site. (See comments below, which make excellent points.)

But, in any developing arms wars, it is not a good idea to get caught between monied giants and Yahoo needs to make sure it does not become the grass in an elephant battle.

In a recent onstage interview with me at the seventh D: All Things Digital conference, in fact, Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz said Yahoo definitely needed to maintain its 20 percent share.

Bad news for her then, when yesterday Ballmer shot another one across the Yahoo bow, by telling a group of business execs at a luncheon:

“Our shareholders, I told them we were willing to spend 5 to 10 percent of operating income for up to five years in this business, and we feel like we can get an economic return.”

Since it is cash-spewing Microsoft–more than $20 billion in operating income last year–that’s a lot of money.

And, even if history has not been kind of Microsoft’s like-a-drunken-sailor spending before in the Internet space, there is no question the company has an obsessive commitment to eventually gain ground, grinding down companies like Yahoo if need be.

And within the larger context of Ballmer and Bartz in hot-and-cold discussions about a search and advertising partnership deal, his statement is clearly a signal to Yahoo to get on the Microsoft train or run the risk of getting run over.

Thus, Bartz has got to ask herself one question as she ponders what to do: Do I feel lucky?

Speaking of which, here is a video of the classic scene from Clint Eastwood in “Dirty Harry” uttering those words:

Recently–in the echo chamber that is Silicon Valley–several people told BoomTown quite separately that former Yahoo President Sue Decker had become an executive-in-residence at the Blackstone Group.

Actually, when reached via email, Decker told me she has yet to decide her next step after leaving Yahoo and had simply set up a no-strings-attached desk at the private equity firm’s San Francisco office, but is definitely not an EIR there.

And who says bloggers don’t check?

In fact, a move to join Blackstone formally would have been very ironic for Decker given that the firm–specifically, longtime friend and former colleague, Jill Greenthal–was one of the advisers to Microsoft (MSFT) in its failed takeover battle for Yahoo (YHOO), a fact that was highlighted in a post I did last year.

Instead, Decker has been keeping a low profile since she announced she was resigning from her post the very day new Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz arrived.

Decker was also a candidate for the top job, which she sought after sticking by former Yahoo CEO and co-founder Jerry Yang through some very rough times for both.

Her last day at Yahoo, after nine years there, was April 1.

In the email, Decker explained that she has not yet made any future work-related plans, but had simply taken up an offer from Blackstone’s President Tony James, as well as Greenthal, who suggested she could set up a small office there to attend to board work. The three all used to work together at Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette.

Even without an executive perch, Decker could use such a desk given that she sits on some very major boards, including Intel (INTC) and Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A).

More than that, Decker–who sounded pretty happy to me–is not saying. Yet.

Was it more than a month ago that Google was rumored to be in “late-stage negotiations to acquire Twitter”?

Not so much late-stage, I guess, with a gestation period that seems interminable (and BoomTown has been there, so can speak from experience about interminable pregnancies).

In fact, I’m still waiting for the Google (GOOG) takeover news floated inaccurately back then to cross our desk at All Things Digital HQ, although it’s more likely Godot will show up first.

So I guess it should come as no surprise that it was time to fob yet another rumor that yet another moneybags of a company–this time, Apple (AAPL)–is in “late-stage negotiations to buy Twitter.”

You could set your broken-but-right-twice-a-day clock by it, in fact.

But despite very serious interest in Twitter by every company that can afford considering such a thing, getting across that late-stage line would require major investors in the microblogging service to be involved, and they are not as yet.

In fact, both Twitter co-founders, Evan Williams and Biz Stone, are in New York today to attend the 2009 “Time 100″ dinner, which fetes this year’s influential people honorees selected by the magazine. Which they are.

So, if they are in serious talks with Apple, they better grab that award and head on home tout de suite.

In point of fact, talks with Facebook last year were actually the only truly deep sale discussions that Twitter has been involved in, and those went south.

Oh, the very notion of Apple and Twitter is a Techmeme dream-ticket, sure to be chewed over for days on end. (I once considered doing a post that just said “AppleTwitterAppleTwitterAppleTwitter…” for 1,000 words to see how much idiotic traffic I would get.)

But given that it is too good to be true for now, rather than be on the edge of your seat about all these endless, alleged late-stage high jinks, here is a five-step list to cut out and keep when the rumors of “late-stage negotiations” with Microsoft (MSFT), News Corp. (NWS), Verizon (VZ), Yahoo (YHOO), Time Warner (TWX) online unit AOL, Comcast (CMCSA), Cisco (CSCO) and more inevitably show up.

1.) Belle of the Geek Ball

Everyone is indeed actually interested in buying Twitter and each has expressed a proper level of interest to the company’s execs–especially to over-contacted CEO Williams–about said interest.

And, because this is America, a bid for Twitter could come at any time and in any amount.

That’s why Apple has indeed said hello. Why Microsoft’s business development team has been busy formulating a valuation. Why Google’s M&A guy, David Lawee, has called into Twitter’s HQ many times with kind expressions of desire. And why News Corp. execs, including Rupert Murdoch himself, have murmured tweet nothings to the Twitter team.

Please note: This is not the same thing as “late-stage negotiations.” Not at all; so don’t believe such things, as you will see this one coming down the pike for miles (see Step #4 below).

If there ever were an Apple deal to be done, it would not be living in some tidy vacuum.

For example, does one imagine Google CEO Eric Schmidt–who is on the Apple board, much to the FTC’s chagrin, it seems–would decline to enter the fray? Oh, he’d be up to his conflicted eyebrows in it at this point.

(Full disclosure: ATD is also considering making a bid for Twitter, but only if I get to name who is called Chief Twit.)

2.) We Feel Pretty, Oh So Pretty

Twitter’s Williams, as well as Stone, do not really want to sell just yet, given the huge traffic over the last year, goosed even further by the whole Oprah-Ashton Kutcher axis of Tweetvil.

Twitter is growing and growing and growing. Does that mean it has peaked or is just crossing over into the mainstream?

I would say the latter and so would its investors and execs.

I have done a lot of reporting and have found that most of them would like a chance to ride this rocket ship and see if they can prevent it from being a shooting star by figuring out some viable, innovative and lucrative business plan.

“Twitter really could make a lot of money,” said one investor. “And we are not just making that up either.”

Well, phew, because I have been a little worried about that.

3.) We’re Living in a Material World, and I Am a Material Girl

That said, as Madonna sings, a pile of cash is a pile of cash and if one of the suitors makes a big move with $600 million or more in cash, it would be hard for Twitter to completely ignore such an offering.

But, in any case, there will be no late-stage negotiations with one player.

Instead, an epic free-for-all wrestling match to the death would break out among all of them, especially Google and Microsoft.

This will be great for me and all the other tech writers as it will be ugly, competitive and tailor-made for breathless reporting.

Google is the likely winner here, although Microsoft is quite intent on the possibilities of integrating Twitter technology with its business offerings.

Someone will, I can predict with certainty, lose an eye.

4.) All the Single Ladies…Cuz if You Liked It, Then You Should Have Put a Ring on It

And, even with that kind of offer–which I would take in a New York minute, as would some Twitter investors–there is a sense when you talk to Twitter’s founders and investors that they truly believe they are onto some very important interactive communications paradigm shift in the Internet arena with their start-up.

I would have to agree given that the real-time and status-update concepts that Twitter has perfectly touched on are a very important one.

Thus, Twitter would prefer to remain independent for now.

Whether Twitter will prevail or not is never assured, but it would be really a shame if it gave up before the story was over.

5.) And They Lived Happily Ever After

Let’s be honest: There is no real downside here for Twitter.

If the service turns out to be be a flash in the pan and it is not sold for big bucks, Twitter still has heralded a very important new era in the digital industry.

And, if it grows like crazy even more, better still.

Also, Stone got to go on “The Colbert Report” and Williams on “Oprah.”

Best of all, in a shameless plug, they will both be captive on stage with Walt Mossberg and me at the seventh D: All Things Digital conference exactly three weeks from today, where we can ask them about all this and more.

So, I am thrilled too.

Who says there are no happy endings?

Until that D7 interview, here is my recent video with Williams and Stone at Twitter’s funky San Francisco HQ:

Here’s an interesting irony–Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz will have her 99th day in office on the very one that the Internet giant will announce its first-quarter earnings: April 21, 2009 at 2 p.m. PST.

Technically, it will mean that she has been running Yahoo (YHOO) for 100 days, a time when most administrations get their first evaluation.

Thus, if it’s good enough for President Obama, it’s good enough for Bartz!

While most expect the results for the quarter to be weak, due to the econalypse, the overall verdict from BoomTown’s needling of Yahoos to give me info on their new leader recently: Love, love, love Bartz’s innate decisiveness, and wanting more of the same.

“She has an opinion and she is not afraid to use it,” joked one high-ranking Yahoo. “That is a big deal for a lot of people here who have wanted a CEO who is very forceful.”

And the only substantive negative: Some remain worried about her lack of Internet savvy, although most of those admit she has been a quick learner as the 100-day mark comes to a close.

In Yahoo’s case, 100 days has a special meaning–when he got his job in late 2007, former Yahoo CEO and co-founder Jerry Yang declared that he was going to give the troubled company a 100-day evaluation with “no sacred cows.”

The Yang-farmed bovines, as it turned out, just got fatter.

Under Bartz, more have been under the knife, as the hard-charging exec has started to really put her imprint on the company.

She has certainly talked tough since the meet-the-press conference on her very first day on Jan. 13.

Some memorable Bartz quotes were about Yahoo’s immediate needs, in her estimation: “some friggin’ breathing room” and “frankly, [the company] could use a little management.”

That kind of tough-lady, Annie-Get-Your-Gun quote-making has been Bartz’s signature, whether it be in folksy Friday memos she has sent out to staff or at the fourth-quarter earnings call in late January, only weeks into her tenure, when she declared:

“This is not a company that needs to be pulled apart and left for the chickens.”

Well, except for the management structure, which Bartz pulled right apart and reshuffled six weeks in.

Cleaning up and simplifying the complex reporting structure in an all-roads-lead-to-Carol set-up and tossing out the CFO were main points of the reorganization. Many at Yahoo expect there to be even more cuts in staff sooner than later, many sources said.

And there have also been departures of key staff, including: PR head Jill Nash, Zimbra founder Satish Dharmaraj and soon, high-ranking techie Venkat Panchapakesan.

Yang too, although he remains on the board, has not been present as much at the company.

Curiously, though, except for the new CMO, Elisa Steele–whose office is powerfully located right next to Bartz, as many Yahoos noted to me–there have been no further appointments for open positions for CFO, a new Customer Advocacy top exec and a new international head. Presumably, they are on the way.

Not that Bartz has not been busy–visiting Yahoo staff and clients all over–as well as finally finding time for a face-to-face meeting with Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer in Silicon Valley recently.

Before the recent meetings, in a classic negotiating tactic, Bartz (pictured here) has projected a disinterested, poker-faced attitude about the situation, even telling Yahoo staff in one meeting “that she plans to spend a lot of time investigating whether to sell Yahoo’s search business, but that her ‘gut’ was not to do that.”

Well, a sale of Yahoo’s search business might not happen, Bartz was only buying a little time in being so confident and projecting the affect that Yahoo had some leverage and a choice.

But that is exactly what she does not really have, given that Yahoo faces the prospect of spiraling costs to maintain a search share, even as it has a good chance of declining.

So, last week, the news–first reported here Friday–that Bartz was involved in preliminary talks with Microsoft (MSFT) about an extensive commercial advertising and search partnership–should have come as almost no surprise.

A re-engagement between the companies, after a bruising takeover battle that ended in tears all around, has been long hoped for by investors and other observers, given that both have struggled against the search behemoth that is Google (GOOG).

(Or, in a nickname that BoomTown is trying unsuccessfully to popularize: Googzilla.)

The talks–which are not about the software giant making another acquisition offer for Yahoo–are ongoing and might not lead anywhere, but it is in both sides’ interest to avoid that outcome.

“Yahoo has to do some kind of deal or Bartz will be facing a decline even she cannot manage,” said one person close to the situation. “And Microsoft, if it wants to compete in search, needs Yahoo’s share along with its own.”

Among the surprisingly innovative ideas being bandied about: Yahoo might take over all of Microsoft’s display and premium advertising business to sell along with its own, while Microsoft would run the search advertising business for the pair.

And, while the discussions could degenerate into chest-pounding and pointless jockeying, one assumes that Bartz gets the idea that Yahoo needs a lot of help–including from some rapprochement with Microsoft, from making its staff even leaner, from streamlining its product focus and from striking other significant partnerships.

Many inside and outside Yahoo certainly hope that spirit–and not the one from this video below of a fabulous scene of Betty Hutton and Howard Keel in the musical classic, “Annie Get Your Gun,” singing “Anything You Can Do”–prevails with Microsoft in the next 100 days.

Jill Nash, Yahoo’s chief communications officer, has told CEO Carol Bartz and other Yahoo staff this afternoon that she is leaving the company.

Yahoo has not made Nash’s resignation official, but is likely to do so quickly as Bartz tries to stanch incessant leaks (like this one; see below!).

In any case, sources said Nash does not appear to have any definite plans to move to another company immediately, so the reasons for her departure are unclear.

BoomTown would have to guess that Nash is simply completely spent from her past two years at Yahoo (YHOO), which have been very fraught from a public relations perspective, to say the least.

Nash, who was hired by former CEO Terry Semel, has had to deal with everything from management turmoil, after Semel was replaced by co-founder Jerry Yang, to poor financial results to a nasty takeover attempt by Microsoft (MSFT) to an even less friendly proxy fight to a failed search deal with Google (GOOG) to recent wrenching layoffs.

Not much good news to report, in other words, especially with a tough turnaround road ahead with newly installed CEO Bartz, who seems to have a very strong mind of her own about public relations.

(Including, several sources tell me, this week in an internal memo, offering cash rewards to employees who turn in other employees who leak to the press. Bartz has also initiated investigations to stop leaks. All I can say about these tactics–while it might seem reasonable to try to stop the leaking, from a management perspective, and I see why Bartz is focusing on it–is: Yahoo is not a prison and its employees are not snitches and–more to the point–they won’t leak to me if Bartz fixes the company.)

While I have not always seen eye-to-eye with Nash on this column’s coverage of Yahoo, I have found her to be a pro to deal with and fair, especially considering the often tense circumstances at Yahoo in the last year.

Nash is not the first top Yahoo exec to depart since Bartz got to Yahoo in mid-January and will not likely be the last, as the new CEO carves out her own path and chooses the team she wants.

Many Yahoos have told me, not for attribution and at all levels of the company, that they are bone-tired of the long-term struggle the company has been engaged in and want to move on, even in this weak economic climate.

Last week, this column reported the departures of Zimbra co-founder Satish Dharmaraj and marketing exec Eric Hadley, neither of which was necessarily due to Bartz’s arrival.

Now it’s Nash’s turn to say goodbye. According to Yahoo’s Web site, her duties were to lead its outward-facing efforts.

It reads, in part: “As a key member of the Yahoo! executive team, Nash will be responsible for the company’s worldwide communications efforts, including public and media relations, corporate reputation, corporate, financial and employee communications, and crisis and issues management.”

Nash came to Yahoo from the Gap, where she was the VP of global corporate communications. Previous to that, she worked at Charles Schwab (SCHW), KPMG and Transamerica Life.

It was exactly one year ago today that Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer called Yahoo co-founder and then-CEO Jerry Yang and told him he was going to make an unwelcome public bid to buy Yahoo for $44.6 billion, or $31 a share in order to turbocharge Microsoft’s Internet business.

Today, Yahoo (YHOO) shares are hovering at about $12 a share, with the company’s valuation at about $16.3 billion–and Microsoft (MSFT) is still in need of a jump.

I think that just about sums it up!

But if not, here are 10 BoomTown posts over the last year about the pair’s epic failure, oops, fight, you can peruse to take a trip down memory lane:

1.) 2/4/08: Where in the World Is Jerry Yang?

2.) 2/14/08: Are Microsoft’s Boots Made for Walking Away From ‘Hoo?

3.) 4/17/08: MicroHoo: Yahoo and Google Play House

4.) 5/5/08: MicroHoo: The Odd Couple Meetings Led Nowhere

5.) 5/23/08 MicroHoo: The Gates Factor

6.) 7/15/08: Kara Visits the Senate Hearings on the Yahoo-Google Ad Search Deal

7.) 8/4/08: Yahoo Shareholder Vote Number-Crunching–Whither Cap Re’s No Vote?

8.) 11/5/08 Google Dumps Yahoo, Which Should Come as a Shock Only to Yahoo

9.) 11/17/08: Yahoo’s Jerry Yang to Step Down, as a Search for New CEO Commences

10.) 1/7/2009: New Prospect for Yahoo CEO: Carol Bartz

At least Yahoo got one day of stock euphoria, on the news that its CEO, Jerry Yang, was stepping down, before Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer dropped yet another bomb on the troubled Internet giant by saying once more with feeling that he is not at all interested in buying it.

Yahoo (YHOO) stock plummeted on the news, dropping below $10 a share to close at $9.14, down $2.41 or an astonishing 21 percent.

While lack of interest in acquiring Yahoo is a sentiment that Ballmer has expressed more times than Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said “maverick” in the presidential campaign, Wall Street continues to hold out hope that Microsoft might swoop in and make a new takeover bid for all of Yahoo.

It will not. Let’s repeat. It. Will. Not.

Thus, an obviously frustrated Ballmer reiterated his nondesire for Yahoo at Microsoft’s annual shareholders meeting, near its Redmond HQ today.

“We are done with all acquisition discussions with Yahoo,” Ballmer said. “We did our best…we’ve moved on.”

And so should investors, stock analysts and hedge fund vultures, who actually contact BoomTown on a daily basis, asking if when I wrote that Microsoft (MSFT) was not interested in buying Yahoo, I actually meant that it was interested.

Not interested means, well, not interested, except when it comes to those who wish fervently for a pop in Yahoo stock.

But the only way that is going to happen is slowly, as Yahoo rebuilds its much-battered business, brick by brick. And that presumably will happen when a new CEO is selected to run Yahoo.

Lucky for Yahoo, what Ballmer has repeatedly also said is that he was very interested in (and said again today) a search partnership deal with the company.

Microsoft essentially wants to take over that part of Yahoo’s business and will likely give it a pretty penny to do so. For all its troubles, Yahoo remains the No. 2 search player, well behind Google (GOOG), but well ahead of Microsoft.

Microsoft execs think grabbing Yahoo’s business will help it gain on Google–good luck with that, but it gets an A for effort!

And it also hopes another reorganization of its digital businesses will help it do so.

Right now, for example, newly annointed digital exec Yusuf Mehdi is deep in the midst of a restructuring of his division.

Mehdi’s online services portfolio at Microsoft now includes marketing, online audience business development and product management for MSN and the search properties, but divisions and execs are being shifted around.

But the big news, of course, will be the person Ballmer selects to be Mehdi’s boss, as well as the boss for Satya Nadella, the SVP who heads engineering for Microsoft’s search, portal and advertising platform group, and for Brian McAndrews, the SVP for the advertiser and publisher solutions group.

While Ballmer has taken his sweet time in picking someone, after Kevin Johnson left his post overseeing the division in late July, sources inside and outside Microsoft have told me the company is very close to picking a new head.

That would be a good thing since Ballmer has worn out his Rolodex trying–he has been turned down by many, including former Yahoo CEO Dan Rosensweig.

While I am trying to ferret out the current choice, sources said the main candidate is more technically oriented and is well known in Silicon Valley.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

Well, for sure, Microsoft execs were not doing high-fives after Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang said he was stepping down yesterday, as Yahoo searches for a new CEO to take over.

Well, maybe some small and discreet ones.

That hand-slapping, of course, was the delightful tidbit from the New York Times after Microsoft (MSFT) dropped its takeover bid for Yahoo (YHOO) earlier this year.

The story: Yahoo execs were reportedly high-fiving each other in celebration for not taking $31 a share from the software giant. Today, of course, Yahoo stock has been halved.

Which has long begged the question why Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has persistently–almost obsessively, really–not gone back and made another bid for Yahoo at discount prices.

Well, simply put, he does not want Yahoo whole and still doesn’t want it, even with Yang’s departure.

While many like to gin up a “Dynasty”-style feud between Yang and Ballmer–as if they were Alexis and Krystle cat-fighting in a fountain–that was never true, and Yang’s moving on will not change the equation that much.

Of course, Microsoft execs were burning up the phone wires down to Silicon Valley yesterday trying to make sure it is well positioned to make the deal it does want: A sweeping search and search-advertising partnership with Yahoo, whose similar deal with Google (GOOG) recently collapsed.

“They are ready to move, as soon as it becomes clear who is in charge at Yahoo,” said one source close to the situation. “They don’t want to appear too eager, but also don’t want to lose this one.”

Indeed, Microsoft is now in a good position to wait and swoop, one of its more effective tactics. Not that its consumer-facing digital strategies have been very successful thus far, and it definitely bollixed the Yahoo takeover attempt.

But the software giant has shown it can be more than willing to fork over way too much payola to try to catch up with its archrival Google in the search game at companies like Facebook and, more recently, Verizon (VZ).

While a deal with Yahoo will not bring Microsoft in even close range of Google, it is a deal that is most likely to be done, given the pressure on Yahoo now.

While a large group of execs at Yahoo still maintain that separating search and the company’s other businesses is dangerous to its future, it is hard to imagine its board will pick a new CEO who is not more than willing to travel to Microsoft’s Redmond, Wash., HQ and make peace pronto, and do a deal.

High-fives, all around, everyone?

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

In fact, my single favorite quote came from one Yahoo staffer, who noted that while the massive change that will come with the replacement of Yang–who co-founded the company in the mid-1990s–will involve even more turmoil than the beleaguered company has already gone through, Yahoo remains resilient.

“You can kick this dog, but it still barks,” said the exec.

Oh, there will be plenty of Yahoo-kicking still, but that sentiment is dead-on.

The employee meant that Yahoo (YHOO) is still one of the most trafficked sites on the Web, has some of the Internet’s most valuable digital properties (from the Flickr photo service to its massive communications assets to its leading content sites), was an important buy in online advertising and still makes more profits than most companies in the sector.

And, indeed, that is all true, although Yahoo has been howling, more than anything, over the last year as it has ricocheted from crisis to crisis–from the exodus of key employees to the botched-on-both-sides takeover attempt by Microsoft to the plummeting stock price to the collapsed deal to do a search advertising partnership with Google.

Here are three key points people have made over and over to me:

1. IT IS ALL JERRY YANG’S FAULT, BUT HE IS A NICE GUY

This thread centers around the lack of strong leadership by Yang, who took over at the company in June of 2007, after former CEO Terry Semel stepped down suddenly in the wake of a very bad annual meeting.

The major gripes: Yang should have sold to Microsoft (MSFT) at $31 a share when he had the chance; Yang should have not dawdled about making major changes and cost cuts; Yang should have made a merger deal with Time Warner (TWX) online unit AOL faster; Yang should not have made a deal with Google (GOOG) so quickly; Yang and all of Yahoo cannot make a decision to save its life.

And, most of all, Yang was not the right CEO for Yahoo, even though his heart was in the right place and bled purple, Yahoo’s color.

“Jerry was in over his head,” said a source close to Yahoo’s board. “He is a really nice man and perhaps that is where the problems are.”

Now, all these points are valid ones–he did dawdle a lot–although Yang does have a defense for each of them.

Such as: Microsoft was never truly serious about a bid; the problems at Yahoo required a major overhaul and not a quick fix; the AOL deal has a lot of integration issues and pricing is hard with Yahoo’s stock in the basement; Google always does what Google wants and what’s good for Google.

By the way, Yang and Yahoo have always had a decision-making problem, and Yang is a nice guy. Not that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the latter, but the former is pretty much its biggest problem.

2. JERRY YANG IS TAKING THE FALL FOR SUE DECKER/ROY BOSTOCK/TERRY SEMEL/GLOBAL WARMING

A new favorite theory seems to center around the idea that Yang did not deserve this kind of criticism solely. While to my mind, the buck always stops with the CEO, President Sue Decker was the one in charge of all of Yahoo’s main initiatives, Bostock is Yang’s–well–boss as chairman of the board, and former CEO Semel did leave Yang with a lot of fires to put out.

Yang gets a pass on global warming, except that he should change his light bulbs to more efficient ones, but so should we all.

This thread also has some valid points–failure does have many fathers, the cliché notwithstanding. And there is plenty of blame to go around.

But Decker does work for Yang and, while she has had leadership issues and will likely as not leave, he is the one in charge of her. As for Semel, he was good for a while, not so good for a while and should have left sooner.

But that and also management problems have always ultimately been for the board to deal with, and Yahoo’s directors have been a spectacular failure all along in protecting shareholder value and making sure the company was on the right track.

I would single out Bostock in this regard–he was deeply involved in the Microsoft deal and has been slow to move and arrogant in tone. His performance at the annual meeting this year, treating shareholders like they were irksome teenagers for complaining, was appalling.

“I have really been critical about Yang’s and Decker’s performance,” said one large Yahoo investor. “But Bostock told me to my face he was going to do something about it more times than I can count.”

So if Yang has the guts to step down–and it does take guts–Bostock should man up and follow him right out of the board room.

3. YAHOO CAN STILL SHINE

This is entirely true. Yahoo is one of the few jewels of the Internet landscape and has plenty of juice left in it.

“It’s like the New York Yankees, they have a great team but might need a little pitching,” said one Internet player who closely follows Yahoo.

I am not so sure sports analogies are the best way to describe the hole of perception that Yahoo has to dig itself out of, but that’s pretty accurate.

As that great Yankee Yogi Berra (pictured above) once said: “It ain’t over ’til it’s over.”

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

The company has been on the lookout for the person to lead its online efforts ever since the exec formerly in charge, Kevin Johnson, headed out in late July, after the Yahoo takeover bid failed.

At the time, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer promised a quick search for a Web leader the software giant has so sorely needed.

But, apparently, quick means not-so-quick at Redmond HQ, where Ballmer has had a few other things to deal with (like the vagaries of Windows Vista!). So, he has cast about for more than three months, both internally and externally, for the person who will turbocharge Microsoft’s Web efforts.

Sources said Ballmer continues to look for an external candidate to save the day, as he has been, preferring an outsider to give the division some spark.

And, while well-known Internet figures like former Yahoo COO Dan Rosensweig, former AOL head Jon Miller and former Facebook exec Owen Van Natta have all taken a pass, Ballmer is soldiering on.

New prospects include former Cisco exec and current Joost CEO Mike Volpi, sources said, with whom Ballmer is likely to be chitty-chatting next.

BoomTown likes that choice, given Volpi has both technical and deal-making skills, and he is someone well-liked in both media and Internet circles. In fact, Volpi has also been a favorite of Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang, who would also dearly love to snag the personable exec.

But Joost, the once-hot online video start-up, has just pushed the restart button with its new flash player, and is hoping to live up to its initial hype, especially in the wake of the success of rival Hulu.

So it is not entirely clear that Volpi would leave at this moment.

Other possible outside digital execs with the right experience are few and far between.

If I was making a list, I would include CBS Digital kingpin Quincy Smith (who probably talks too quickly for Ballmer), as well as Google ad head Tim Armstrong, although both are also unlikely to move from where they are ensconced.

Thus, with so few good choices, it might be that Microsoft (MSFT)–as usual–turns inward.

But even that’s in question, given the prospects of the main internal candidate, Brian McAndrews, who came to Microsoft in its acquisition of aQuantive and runs its online advertising business, seem to have dimmed, sources said. But some caution that McAndrews is not out of the running yet.

The other insider with a chance–Yusuf Mehdi–got the job running MSN and other of Microsoft’s online properties.

He is waiting for the digital uber-boss to lead him, as well as McAndrews and also Satya Nadella, the SVP who heads engineering for Microsoft’s search, portal and advertising platform group.

For now, said one source, that appears to be Ballmer. “He’s going to be the digital chief,” joked one exec. “Until he finds someone he likes just as much.”

In any case, here is a recent interview I did with Volpi in London about Joost’s restart:

When reports came out last week that Google and Yahoo were downsizing their controversial search advertising deal, I told a Yahoo exec I happened to be having dinner with that that it was the surest sign that the search giant was about to dump the long-suffering Internet portal.

The exec, who made the case that the deal was always tactical, and not strategic, laughed. For all its problems, Yahoo (YHOO) has always been a straight-up player and such sneaky machinations are not its strong suit.

Google, not so much.

After all, Google (GOOG) had already tried using The Wall Street Journal the week before to try out an our-way-or-the-highway tactic to play chicken with the Justice Department, to no avail.

As I wrote:

And, while it might be testing the Justice Department in hopes of salvaging the deal, I suspect Google–as much as its founders want to help out Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang and block Microsoft at the same time–is just now figuring out that walking might actually be the best move.”

Then in a sudden switcheroo just days later, Google was doing the docile-dog play, using the Journal again to signal that it was willing to compromise drastically to do a deal and trying more to look cooperative with the Justice Department.

Now, Google is not some Internet Sybil–way out of the deal one week and in another. Instead, it was creating what one might call “plausible deniability,” a Washington, D.C. term that essentially means covering your own petard.

Despite Google’s last-minute theatrics of cooperation, I am sure the decision had long been made at its California Googleplex lair that it would bow out.

After all, many top execs at the company were dead set against it from the start, mostly due to the undue scrutiny it would bring to Google. Those execs now had plenty of ammo to mercilessly strafe the deal from behind.

Early on, that was also a big worry of Google’s own operatives in D.C., who expressed concern–largely ignored at HQ, where execs really do see themselves as not even slightly evil–about its growing image as a scary behemoth.

Well, that picture is now most definitely solidified in the minds of regulators, helped along by the dangerous pontificating by CEO Eric Schmidt a little while back, who haughtily declared that Google would move forward with or without government approval.

“Time is money in our business,” said Schmidt, in a quote that I am sure he would like to take back now.

It was just the arrogant kind of attitude that Microsoft (MSFT) lobbyists, who have been hitting this deal hard like an old bass drum, needed in order to paint an ugly picture of Google in D.C.

And–more troublesome for Google–it gave advertisers and publishers, many of whom have long harbored fear of the company’s growing power, the courage to speak out, which they did in droves, along with many public interest groups.

But, as has been clear for a while, the Justice Department–after making its own big and noisy deal in its veiled public leaks of outside litigators and such–had to move forward with a lawsuit, and before the election was over.

And, indeed, as I have long maintained, stopping the deal was the right move all along, because a partnership between the No. 1 and No. 2 players just never should be allowed, however slight in its configuration.

As I wrote in April:

So, any further hook-up between the two seems sure to become the Justice Department Lawyer Employment Act of 2008, the likes of which we have not seen since Microsoft got its turn at being deservedly whacked for being a monopolist back in the last century.

Let’s face it, outside of those who cannot seem to shake the annoying Kumbaya mentality over at Google, a Yahoo-Google partnership is simply fantastical, like some out-of-control Dr. Seuss ditty.

They could not, would not with a goat. They would not, could not on a boat. They will not share an algorithm, they will not, will not, Jerry-I-Am.”

Because, although Google has almost none of the obvious menacing aggression that characterized Microsoft when it thoroughly dominated tech, the government was never going to allow such a clearly dominant company in search to strike such a deal, given the obvious antitrust implications.

As I also said then: “It is bad for advertisers, it is bad for consumers, it is bad for innovation, no matter how well-intentioned Google is.”

Thus, the die was cast for the inevitable dumping of Yahoo, in a hasta-la-vista-baby letter this morning terminating the partnership, which Yahoo should have seen coming many miles away.

Sources close to the company, which has been justifiably irked about how Google has handled itself with the Justice Department, said execs at Yahoo might have expected the move, but were deeply disappointed too.

(Here is Yahoo President Sue Decker’s memo on the collapse of the partnership.)

At least the very least, Yahoo did use the deal to escape the clutches of Microsoft in the midst of an ugly takeover battle, which investors now wish it had not, given its stock price is now half of what it was then.

And, indeed, it was perfectly tactical in that regard, using the software giant’s archrival, Google, to poke Microsoft relentlessly.

But Google would only prod so much, until it adversely impacted its own main goal of quiet but inevitable domination over search and, in fact, all online advertising.

When it did just that, dragging Google into a thorny briar patch, the company inevitably resorted to one of its internal mantras, “Feed the winners, starve the losers.”

Time will tell just how much a loser Yahoo will be from this latest bump in its current pothole-filled journey.

As to the candy-colored Google image? Well, it’s definitely not as sweet as it used to be.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

BoomTown was a squeaky enough wheel to get Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang to grant a long interview by phone yesterday–just a day after he had announced weak third-quarter earnings results for the Internet giant, caught as others are in the econalypse, as well as layoffs of at least 10 percent of its global workforce.

But instead of being glum, as you might expect, especially after a year of corporate turmoil that would have finally gotten to even Job–let’s review: management upheaval, a Microsoft (MSFT) takeover battle, an attack by billionaire activist Carl Icahn, tangling with the Justice Department over a pending Google (GOOG) search advertising partnership and more!–Yang sounded surprisingly confident that Yahoo (YHOO) would emerge a winner after all the wrenching change is wrought at the company he co-founded.

I split the interview into two parts. The second will appear later today at 4 p.m. Pacific time, talking about Icahn, the Google deal, Microsoft and why Yang thinks he is the right leader for Yahoo, so check back.

Here is the first part, in which he talks about Yahoo’s financial performance and the impact of the bad economy on Yahoo’s dominant display advertising business and gives more details of the layoffs and cost cuts.

BT: How do you look at the last quarter?:

Yang: What we said was that the quarter showed some strength in U.S. search and performance display, but more weakness in branded, especially at the end in the U.S., and more so internationally. The U.S. started softening in Q2 and that continued into Q3. International was hit much harder, although display still grew double-digits there in Q3. Softness started in the U.K. early, and we knew when the French came back from vacation in September and did not buy ads at the same levels that those were trends we had to watch.

Asia was more of a surprise, but the same trends were happening there too. Because we have such a big market share there, we are looking to every country for what is coming next.

BT: And what is your Q4 outlook?:

Yang: Like everyone else, we are pretty much forced to formulate our views in an unprecedented set of circumstances because things are changing so quickly and the world looks a lot different than just three or four weeks ago.

Of course, I can’t imagine advertisers are going to say we’re going to juice up spending soon, and so we’re assuming a lengthy period of weakness. I don’t think anyone is going to be immune, even though search performance ads are probably more able to withstand a downturn in spending. What was good for us was that our search and our performance display businesses were both up in the quarter.

BT: Any more details about the layoffs and other cuts?:

Yang: We want to do it before the holidays, which is why we wanted to let people know that it would affect 10 percent [of Yahoo's work force]. But we also want to make sure that we are cutting to be more effective and not cutting for cutting’s sake.

We’re asking ourselves–should we sell it or should we shut it down? That is the kind of comprehensive look we are doing across the company.