Incredibly, this is the seventh year of the D: All Things Digital conference.

We feel very lucky to get here, especially in the midst of what our own site’s Digital Daily scribe, John Paczkowski, has so perfectly dubbed the “econalypse.”

Ironically, Walt Mossberg and I planned to launch the very first conference in the middle of the last major downturn for tech, in 2001. But, in the carnage of the Web 1.0 meltdown, we actually held off for two years, with our first D gathering taking place in 2003.

It’s been a real winning streak since then for D, due in large part to our great speakers–such as Microsoft (MSFT) icon Bill Gates and Apple (AAPL) legend Steve Jobs.

Both have been onstage many times over the years, including a historic interview the pair of tech titans did together in 2007 at D5.

Other amazing speakers have included: Howard Stringer of Sony (SNE), Barry Diller of InterActiveCorp (IACI), legendary director George Lucas, Time Warner (TWX) CEO Jeff Bewkes, Jeff Bezos of Amazon (AMZN), former eBay (EBAY) CEO Meg Whitman, News Corp. (NWS) head Rupert Murdoch, Microsoft head Steve Ballmer, Walt Disney (DIS) honcho Bob Iger, Bobby Kotick of Activision Blizzard (ATVI), CBS (CBS) CEO Les Moonves, Democratic and Republican pols like former Vice President Al Gore and Sen. John McCain, all the leadership of Google (GOOG) and many, many more.

We have had a lot of great moments onstage with all these tech and media players over the years, to be sure, with interviews ranging from the funny to the sublime to the truly disastrous.

But, like the digital industry and the innovation our conference focuses on, we also like to lean forward to try to figure out what the Next Big Thing is around the corner, whether it comes from Silicon Valley or not.

That’s why we’re kicking off our conference on May 26 with two of the founders of Twitter–Biz Stone and Evan Williams–who are riding high on tech’s latest hot thing, which might turn out to be either a rocket ship or a shooting star.

They’ll be followed up over the next two days by a plethora of interesting players, from the leaders of several major mobile companies to content execs hit hard by fast-moving digital forces to a new Internet leader like Yahoo (YHOO) CEO Carol Bartz, who is trying to turn around one of the Web’s great icons from its more recent lackluster path.

And, as we always do, we will be featuring a spate of demos too, trying to see if we can unearth that next next thing.

In the past, the D stage has seen the debut of start-up products like Sling Media’s Slingbox, Aliph’s Jawbone and Pure Digital’s Flip, all of which have gone onto glory. And also some, like Palm’s Foleo, which did not.

While not everyone can attend D, our crack staff is committed to bringing all the action from this year’s conference to readers of the All Things Digital site via up-to-the-minute blogs, photos, videos, tweets, digs and more. We’ll also, as soon as we can, post the videos of each of the onstage sessions, in their entirety.

Until it all kicks off, here is the list of speakers, below, in alphabetical order, who will be appearing at 2009’s D7 conference:

Irving Azoff | CEO of Ticketmaster Entertainment (TKTM)

Mitchell Baker | Chairman of Mozilla

Steve Ballmer | CEO of Microsoft

Carol Bartz | CEO of Yahoo

Mark Cuban | Chairman of HDNet and Owner of the Dallas Mavericks, Landmark Theaters and Magnolia Pictures

Eve Ensler | Playwright and Founder of V-Day

Arianna Huffington | Editor-in-Chief of the Huffington Post

Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo | CEO of Nokia (NOK)

Mike Lazaridis | Co-CEO of Research In Motion (RIMM)

John Lilly | CEO of Mozilla

John Malone | Chairman of Liberty Media Corporation (LCAPA)

Roger McNamee | Partner, Elevation Partners

Jon Miller | Chief Digital Officer of News Corp.

Jon Rubinstein | Executive Chairman, Palm (PALM)

Randall Stephenson | CEO of AT&T (T)

Biz Stone | Co-founder of Twitter

Owen Van Natta | CEO of MySpace

Katharine Weymouth | Publisher of the Washington Post (WPO)

Evan Williams | Co-founder and CEO of Twitter

Jeff Zucker | CEO of NBC Universal (GE)

As soon as he got his new job last week, new AOL Chairman and CEO Tim Armstrong sent out a rather hopeful email to the troops–his first communication as the latest leader of the ragtag online service.

“I’m really looking forward to seeing you and would love to hear your thoughts and suggestions,” wrote the former Google (GOOG) exec Friday (who alarmingly kind of resembles this Elvis image), “on how to make AOL and its sister properties the most powerful brands on the Internet.”

Well, one can hope!

To goose that dream, although he still does not officially start in the job until April 7, Armstrong is also addressing all the troops tomorrow at 11 am EST and has chosen to do so from, of all places, AOL’s old center of power in Dulles, Virginia.

AOL staffers I spoke to also hope most of all that Armstrong will quickly and transparently lay out plans for a spin-out of the Time Warner (TWX) online unit from the media conglomerate, where it has languished for years.

“Armstrong would not have taken the job if the plans for a spin out of AOL were not in place and it’s in everyone’s interests to signal that it’s a go right away,” said one source close to the situation. “The only catch is the poor economy, but even that should not prevent Time Warner from doing what’s right to finally fix AOL.”

And sources said Armstrong could further up the ante tomorrow and help raise the layoff-weary morale by having some former AOL execs from its glory days as the top online player in person at the event.

Several sources said one exec most likely to make an appearance is Ted Leonsis (pictured here), one of AOL’s most colorful top early execs and a longtime inspirational figure within its ranks.

Unlike most AOL execs from those days, many of whom were eventually run out on a rail, Leonsis also stayed on through its disastrous merger with Time Warner and beyond.

But, like all of the Dulles complex–which was once the bustling worldwide HQ for AOL–Leonsis finally left the company, after a falling out with the management regime that Armstrong just hipchecked out of power. He is now AOL’s vice chairman emeritus.

Both CEO Randy Falco and President Ron Grant moved AOL’s locus largely to New York, and minimized the staff and influence at Dulles, where most of AOL’s products have been made since its origins in the early 1990s.

“It’s a smart move to go to [the Dulles staff] directly first…the last regime pretty much shut them out…and that created bitterness, when we need to be unified,” wrote one AOL insider to me in an email.

(Sidenote: As the AOL beat reporter at the Washington Post back then, I actually went with then-PR head Jean Case to look over what became the Dulles facility, to see if it would be a good place to expand to; previously, AOL was located in nearby Vienna, behind a car dealership.)

A Leonsis visit at AOL will be like old home week, although some are hoping too that former AOL CEO Steve Case could also make an appearance. He and Leonsis still make online investments together.

But that might still be deeply controversial within Time Warner, where Case and also former Time Warner CEO Jerry Levin are widely blamed for situation that the company found itself in when the Web 1.0 bubble burst and AOL’s once vaunted valuation collapsed.

Although Case and Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes have since moved on, bygones have not been bygones within Time Warner.

And, while it is often denied by top execs, AOL has suffered because of ill-hidden grudges, which have partly prevented it from being revived, even as other Internet giants have been born in the interim.

Ironically, many of the current crop of shooting stars owe a lot to the pioneering and innovative AOL products, including: its AIM and ICQ instant messaging services, which echo an early version of Twitter; the “Buddy List,” which was all about friending; and its deep social networking roots, with chat rooms and profiles that were the Facebook of its day.

The question for Armstrong is: Can AOL go home again?

Recently, BoomTown had a lovely lunch with PBS new media blogger Mark Glaser (pictured here).

Glaser is a longtime free-lance journalist whom I first noticed when he wrote a weekly column for the USC Annenberg School of Communication’s Online Journalism Review, post-Web 1.0 bubble, as well as for the most excellent “Media Grok” daily email newsletter for the now-defunct Industry Standard back in the midst of the froth.

Glaser was always able to cut through that with a clear-headed tone–while maintaining a respect for what was good about traditional journalism, as well as an excitement about the possibilities of new media.

His MediaShift site for PBS has recently gotten much beefed up, with interesting pieces about a range of digital media topics, from a cool map-timeline combo from the Washington Post to a new business venture called the Printed Blog to, of course, the impact of social media on journalism.

(There is also an interesting closely linked site called “Idea Lab,” which is a group blog about reinventing community news in the digital age.)

Glaser writes on the MediaShift blog about once a week and has about a dozen contributors.

A recent post–and thank goodness for some counter-programming in the blogosphere–was titled: “Warning: Dependence on Facebook, Twitter Could Be Hazardous to Your Business.”

Here’s my video interview with him, on a range of issues facing the media in the interactive world (apparently, journalists don’t know everything!):

Finally, someone who might actually understand the Internet will be taking charge of the thus-far lackadaisical government body that plays the largest role in spurring its growth.

The Washington Post is reporting that Julius Genachowski (pictured here) will be tapped to take on the always controversial job of chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.

Sources with knowledge of the situation also confirmed the appointment, which will be announced in the next few days, to BoomTown.

Genachowski has previously worked for the FCC as its chief counsel under former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt. But he is better known to Silicon Valley as a longtime Internet exec at Barry Diller’s IAC/InterActiveCorp (IACI).

He is now a founder of a Washington, D.C.-based venture firm called LaunchBox Digital, which has invested in a plethora of unusually trendy Web 2.0 companies.

One of its investments, the social news aggregation service Socialmedian, was recently acquired by the German-based business networking site Xing for $7.5 million.

And Genachowski is also a co-founder and managing director of Rock Creek Ventures, another venture firm, and a special adviser at General Atlantic.

Perhaps most notably, he went to law school with President-Elect Barack Obama.

Thus, Genachowski worked the tech sector tirelessly for Obama’s election, along with organizing the campaign’s successful social-networking and online fund-raising campaign.

He was also clearly on the short list to be America’s first chief technology officer, which might be too light on policy-making and too heavy on pontificating for Genachowski’s tastes.

As top telecom and, really, Internet regulator, Genachowski will have a lot more power and even more on his plate, including the rocky shift from analog to digital television, now set to take place next month, as well as dealing with net neutrality and a range of other key Web issues.

But top of the agenda will likely be how to make real Obama’s promise to drastically improve broadband access across this nation and lowering prices.

The slow speeds and high costs are an appalling legacy of Washington regulators and politicians, who have lived too long and too deep in the pockets of big telecom companies.

That has made the U.S. exactly what Softbank founder Masa Son once called in an interview I did with him at a D: All Things Digital conference: the “Third World of broadband.”

Hey, Julius, you’ll fix that, right?

How can BoomTown put it plainly?

The alleged deal being cooked up by a group of Silicon Valley investors to take a run at Yahoo using money raised from Microsoft, is little more than what we used to call a “trial balloon” when I worked at the Washington Post.

That did not stop Silicon Valley from jabbering about the latest plot twist all day, in which the TechCrunch report named no names, but carried an awful lot of water for someone looking to see the reaction to such an idea.

Because when you actually talk to sources at the wallet itself–that would be the money-laden Microsoft (MSFT)–they scoff at the notion that they would help others buy Yahoo (YHOO) in order to get at its search business.

“We can deal directly with Yahoo, which is moving through a process to get a new CEO, and when the time is right, we will deal with their leadership,” said a source close to Microsoft’s thinking. “Getting involved in some convoluted deal with others in control…it’s idiotic.”

Yahoo sources also called the idea–which has been floated numerous times to no result–silly. “I guess anyone can make a bid for the company,” said one source. “But actually doing it is another thing.”

So, here’s my official announcement that All Things Digital will be trying to buy Yahoo forthwith. Now, if I can only find that $18 billion, it is mine, all mine.

Is it just me or does the fact that President-Elect Barack Obama is broadcasting his weekly address on YouTube not seem like it should be the very biggest deal in the world?

Still, when an article in the Washington Post reported late last week that he would put his weekly Democratic address online in video–on YouTube and his own transition site, Change.gov–as well as the regular radio, the squeals from tech were louder than at a mall appearance by the Zac Efron of “High School Musical.”

While it is a first for the Commander-in-Chief, I am more depressed that it is a first–after all, skateboarding cats made it to YouTube eons ago–than utterly thrilled that he is doing it.

But, when it come to the glacial movement related to politicians and tech issues, disappointment seems to be a better stance than hope.

I could begin with the fact that the U.S. has poor broadband and wireless coverage compared with most comparable nations (Softbank’s Masa Son once told me in an interview that this country was the “third world of broadband”).

Ironically, the price of high-speed access ranks at the top, by really gross margins.

Or that the federal government remains unfocused on a number of important digital issues, from immigration to privacy to net neutrality.

Perhaps because of his more obvious use of Internet tools, from communicating to supporters to raising money to targeting voters, Obama has felt like the first true Internet candidate, well beyond the ultimately unsuccessful inroads made by Howard Dean in 2004.

And now with even more YouTube videos, the Twitters, a much more interactive Web site at Change.gov and, best of all, the possible appointment of a CTO for America, it has been a general lovefest that the Obama presidency has engendered from the Internet community, simply for the focus the sector is now getting.

And more interactive communications are promised, such as regular video interviews with senior members of the Obama administration.

“This is just one of many ways that he will communicate directly with the American people and make the White House and the political process more transparent,” spokeswoman Jen Psaki said to the Washington Post.

It’s not that BoomTown does not think this is a great thing, but to me, this kind of transparent communication should be as normal as it has become throughout the rest of society as a matter of course.

Also, it would be nice if the Obama videos were also distributed on many other video services besides YouTube, which is the largest, but owned by Google (GOOG), whose CEO Eric Schmidt is a prominent supporter of the new administration.

Still, the four-minute video that Obama released yesterday is a good first step, along with a previous one from transition Co-Chairman Valerie Jarrett, who recorded a two-minute video earlier in the week.

Both are below:

President-Elect Barack Obama

Transition Co-Chairman Valerie Jarrett

Today, BoomTown boards the Acela Express from New York’s Penn Station to D.C.’s Union Station to attend the Senate hearing on the Yahoo agreement with Google to outsource some of its ad search business.

Titled rather ominously, “The Google-Yahoo Agreement and the Future of Internet Advertising,” the Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights (eek!) will hear testimony at 10:30 a.m. at the Dirksen Senate Office Building from a passel of Internet reps, including those from Yahoo, Microsoft and Google.

It is chaired by Sen. Herbert Kohl (D., Wis.).

Will there be a lovely video of event? Indeed, there will be!

Added plus: I went to college and even worked on Capitol Hill, all before toiling at the Washington Post (Hey, Marcus!) for a dog’s age, so I know my way around the place.

And, as BoomTown readers might recall, I am not for the deal, mostly because it gives Google even more market power, even though the partnership is limited.

As I wrote:

As someone who has been a longtime critic of Microsoft’s (MSFT) historically thuggish tendencies, BoomTown finds it a little hard to believe that Yahoo and Google think that they can get away with any kind of significant search-ad outsourcing deal that would move the needle at Yahoo … .

And while it might be a long-cherished dream of Google’s to take over Yahoo search–and also get the chance to return to the scene of the crime, since Google got its first big push from doing Yahoo search, before Yahoo (YHOO) wised up too late–there is simply no way this will be allowed by regulators. Nor should it.

Still, you have to almost admire the chutzpah of the search giant in making this move, if the sheer and unadulterated arrogance of it wasn’t so distracting.

Because, while Google (GOOG) has almost none of the obvious menacing aggression that characterized Microsoft when it thoroughly dominated tech (although all those beach bikes on its campus inexplicably creep me out a little bit), the company still cannot be allowed to have a monopolistic share of the market.

It is bad for advertisers, it is bad for consumers, it is bad for innovation, no matter how well-intentioned Google is.”

So, you might imagine, I am looking forward to biting into this tasty piece of political theater!

Here is the list of speakers:

David Drummond
Senior Vice President
Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer
Google
Mountain View, Calif.

Michael Callahan
General Counsel
Yahoo!
Sunnyvale, Calif.

Brad Smith
Senior Vice President and General Counsel
Microsoft
Redmond, Wash.

Matthew Crowley
Chief Marketing Officer
Yellowpages.com
Glendale, Calif.

Tim Carter
President and CEO
Askthebuilder.com
Cincinnati, Ohio

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

When I was in Los Angeles recently, I stopped by the Santa Monica offices of Demand Media, the network of social networking sites and apps maker, because of the rumors that I had heard swirling around that Yahoo was looking to purchase it for up to $2 billion.

Such a major deal seemed to me to be a rash one for Yahoo (YHOO) to make at this point, due to its current turmoil, as it seeks to find ways to socialize its massive content and communications assets more quickly.

As it turned out, reports of that possibility were greatly exaggerated, mostly due to a dinner that top Yahoo execs Hilary Schneider and Scott Moore had with its founder and CEO Richard Rosenblatt the very night I was visiting, which was not treated like a secret in any way whatsoever.

(I called Moore and Schneider, in fact, to tell them Rosenblatt would be late due to our interview, and I am guessing they would not have picked up for me if they were in the midst of prepping a big offer.)

Rosenblatt played down the idea of any Yahoo offer on the record, noting he was not interested in selling at this point anyway.

“There is a lot of potential here and I want to build a big company for the long-term,” said Rosenblatt, who has sold several. And while IPO plans are not in the near future, one imagines Demand could work toward that.

And Yahoo sources confirm that there has been no offer floated.

But there is no question that Schneider, who just took over all U.S. operations at Yahoo, is very interested in partnering in a significant way with Demand, because it has built a profitable company that creates a plethora of ad-impression-generating social networks of all kinds.

The bigger Demand sites are eHow, and Livestrong, a health-oriented site in partnership with famous cyclist Lance Armstrong.

The company also has a major domain registry business and recently acquired Pluck, which powers social networking features on many other sites, such as the Washington Post.

So far, gold-plated investors like Goldman Sachs (GS), Oak Investment Partners–and even a private investment from major Yahoo investor Gordon Crawford–have poured almost $400 million into the company.

Nonetheless, some wonder whether the patchwork of sites–many of which get content from other Demand sites, along with its many other disparate businesses–adds up to a multi-billion-dollar valuation quite yet.

Still, at some point when it is not in the free fall it is currently in, Yahoo might make a great purchase for Demand.

And it could certainly use the dose of energy from the ebullient Rosenblatt–who came from a paparazzi-clogged lunch with Armstrong, his latest squeeze Kate Hudson and her mother, Goldie Hawn, right before our chat.

And, in fact, Rosenblatt, who was former CEO of Intermix, which owned MySpace (Rosenblatt was chairman) and sold it to to News Corp. (NWS)–the owner of Dow Jones and All Things Digital–might indeed be the kind of bold, swing-for-the-fences exec Yahoo needs to reinvent itself.

But, as you will see in this long video interview below, he has some interesting ideas about where he can take the start-up first.

Here’s the video:

Another day, another tech blog eruption featuring Michael “The Volcano” Arrington of TechCrunch and, this time, Wired’s Betsy “Ain’t-Backing-Down” Schiffman.

When last we checked in with Arrington, he was elegantly telling Chris Shipley that her longstanding tech conference might want to take a dirt nap. Specifically: “Demo needs to die.”

But that’s not all!

Before that, Arrington was comparing tech blogs to gangs and contemplating bloody fights with some post-bashing tango. In it, he advised tech blogs not to raise money and talked of the importance of sector roll-ups without, oops, actually mentioning TechCrunch was both considering raising money and doing a roll-up of tech blogs.

Here’s one incredible quote from the piece: “Personally, I’ve found that if a fight is necessary, fight clean and fight hard. Make it as bloody as possible and end it fast, with no loose ends dangling about. Leave no lingering emotional stone unturned. When everyone gets up and dusts themselves off, the issue should have been resolved one way or the other, and both sides should be happy to shake hands and tango another day, even if the handshaking is done privately.”

In the latest kerfuffle, Schiffman wrote what was a minor criticism at the very end of a piece about a syndication deal that TechCrunch struck with the Washington Post (WPO).

She wrote: “We’ve got nothing against TechCrunch, but it seems crazy-crazy to us that the Washington Post, a paper known for the sort of reporting that can take down U.S. presidents, is publishing content written by a dude who invests in the companies he writes about. But what do we know.”

Snarky yes, but Arrington writes like this all the time (as does BoomTown).

More importantly, since Arrington does actually invest in several companies and says he also advises some covered by TechCrunch (see here in a very short disclosure, given he invested his own money), it is not an outrageous point to make related to a deal with a venerable media institution like the Post.

In any case, Arrington has got to have heard this one before and in much worse ways.

I know I have many times due to my relationship with Megan Smith, who is currently a vice president at Google (GOOG), as is disclosed here in detail, even though I do not own one single share in the company and–TMI–we split all costs exactly down to the penny (except for all those pricey over-and-above-birthdays-and-Christmas toys she likes to buy for our kids, which I sensibly refuse to pay for).

As I wrote in my disclosure: “I am well aware of the controversies surrounding ethics online now swirling about, some of which have resulted in giving readers some pause about the quality and honesty of some in the blogosphere. Such wariness is always a good thing for everyone and I encourage readers to ask tough questions and demand more of those providing them information of all kinds. I know that I am asking for a large measure of trust from readers of the site, and I pledge to do everything I can to be deserving of that trust.”

So I get maybe being irked, especially if you are trying to be as transparent as possible, and maybe writing Wired a stern note saying it was unfair.

But instead of that, he chose to respond by putting out another set of classy bons mots on Twitter: “Wow. F*** You too, Wired.”

In a post yesterday, peacefully titled “OK, Wired, Let’s Do This,” Arrington blamed this explosion on “a night of heavy drinking at the Time 100 party.”

OK, maybe he’s drunk and incredibly rash, but it was liquor imbibed at a very important soiree!

But post-drinking, I assume since it was posted in the afternoon, Arrington followed up with another winner on Twitter: “No one at Wired is responding to me today about their post yesterday. I’m organizing a Wired burning party (the mag, not their offices).”

Well, phew, just the magazines on fire! Ha, ha, ha!

Actually, not funny at all–I am just humorless about book-burning, so I will take any and all criticism on the subject for that stance, given the ugly history of the burning of media–but there you have it.

Except not at all.

Arrington wrote his own piece yesterday, which was meant to be reasonable, although it was seeping with indignation about small slights over when and how Wired responded to him (which appeared to have been done, but not to his liking, as Wired’s follow-up responding to Arrington’s antics recounted) and with too much of a gotcha focus on what is a dumb, name-calling tag word Wired used on the story.

But while he was right about the juvenile tag, Arrington then, like clockwork, in the very same piece called Schiffman a “troll.”

Well, at least he’s consistent.

But not at all like what I know the Washington Post expects from those it affiliates with, which is to say making the highest and most strenuous efforts to be civil, fair and temperate.

While it has not always succeeded at this–its Janet Cooke debacle in the early 1980s, for example, was a black eye–the Post has always tried to aim for the highest of standards.

How do I know this? Because I started delivering mail at the Post while I was in college at Georgetown University, was later an intern there and then a reporter for a decade more.

I could not be more proud of my time there or be more in admiration of the people who work there every day–even in these tough times for newspapers–who try very hard to act, when representing the Post, as professionals.

No one exemplifies that more than the Post’s owner and CEO Don Graham (pictured here), whom I admire profoundly. At once a gentle soul and also wise to the ways of the world, Graham is a true hero of mine.

While I love my various jobs at Dow Jones (NWS), I have missed being at the Post many times over the years, and Graham and I have always been in touch.

So I am very sorry to see the Post dragged into this temper tantrum by one of its new contributors, sullying its fine reputation.

And if it is just showboating, as some have suggested–a traffic-inducing faux wrestling match for the cheap seats in the back (and they are cheap)–than it is a lousy show.

In any case, Arrington will surely once again–as he has–claim that competitors like Wired and also this site should not comment on his behavior at TechCrunch (and, just to be clear, AllThingsD, wholly owned by Dow Jones, is not vying with TechCrunch to appear in the Washington Post either).

But standards and public online conduct are an increasingly important issue, if the blogosphere–as I believe Arrington must want also–is to have the kind of credibility it deserves.

And while Arrington and I obviously do not see eye-to-eye on a lot of stuff–I have criticized some of TechCrunch’s practices and Arrington’s own professional behavior directly to him via email and to others and I have even written about it several times (here, for example)–I do admire TechCrunch’s energy and relentless focus and the way it has forced others to compete more rigorously in covering the Web 2.0 sector.

And, lastly, whether Schiffman or I question such a syndication deal, it really does not matter, since it is solely up to the editors of the Post as to what they want to publish.

So, if they choose TechCrunch, that’s their decision.

But–and I can’t wait to see what delightful name Arrington slings at me for saying so–TechCrunch, in accepting what is a real honor and validation from one of this country’s great media organizations, should be ashamed of returning the favor by dragging the Post into a largely unprovoked and dirty gutter fight.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google. ]]> http://kara.allthingsd.com/20080514/memo-to-don-graham-thar-he-blows/feed/ 11 http://kara.allthingsd.com/20071011/kara-superpokes-yossi-vardi-and-some-dow-jones-online-guy-at-google-zeitgeist/ http://kara.allthingsd.com/20071011/kara-superpokes-yossi-vardi-and-some-dow-jones-online-guy-at-google-zeitgeist/#comments Thu, 11 Oct 2007 08:55:24 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/20071011/kara-superpokes-yossi-vardi-and-some-dow-jones-online-guy-at-google-zeitgeist/ Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.