Today, in an internal meeting of its VP-level execs, Yahoo’s interim CEO Tim Morse said of the Silicon Valley Internet giant’s strategic review that “we know time is a constraint and we are mindful we have to go quickly.”

Morse, who is largely seen as a figurehead by Yahoo insiders and a proxy for the board after the recent firing of CEO Carol Bartz, held the confab this morning.

(Note to Tim: I don’t know why I am not just invited to these Yahoo gatherings, since it would make my life a lot easier.)

Back to the meeting action: Morse got a lot of questions from the execs, who were very concerned by the muddled swirl of rumors about the future of Yahoo, including a possible sale.

While saying he was open to all questions, Morse began with an explanation for the group that he could not answer “unwise” ones that he either did not have insight into or could not answer in a semi-public forum.

That included upcoming quarterly results, retention plans and, of course, sale offers.

Only wise questions, peeps! (And no wisenheimer stuff, either!)

Of course, no one paid attention to that request. They launched instead into multiple queries about the strategic plan the board is working on.

Morse told the group that there was interest in Yahoo and that its banking advisers were reaching out to those “we think we should be talking to.”

He added, noting that Yahoo had to focus on its ongoing business: “We know time is a constraint and we are mindful we have to go quickly” on the strategic review of what to do.

Previously, the board has said the process would take months, which is too glacial, considering.

There was also a question about the stock and the risks to their jobs in any deal. Cautioning that he could not say what would happen, Morse assured them that any party that buys the company would likely want to retain talent.

Someone else asked what a good buyer would look like. Morse replied that it would be someone who was good for employees, for shareholders and for customers.

But not good for the wretched media!

Morse took particular aim at us, noting that the press was writing stories “because they make money out of clicks.”

Actually, while we will take the clicks, AllThingsD is writing stories so Yahoos and everyone else can get a clearer picture of what is going on, as opposed to the incessant corporate confusion coming from Yahoo.

(By the way, just sayin’, but Yahoo also likes the clicks to its pages.)

One person asked if Yahoo was officially for sale. Morse said, “No, we are not trying to sell the company.” Then, he blamed the media again for misreading co-founder Jerry Yang’s recent memo about evaluating options as code for a sale.

Which it was — and you can take that click to the bankers.

A Yahoo spokeswoman, natch, declined to comment.

And then there was Schiller and Gore.

That would be Apple’s SVP of worldwide product marketing Phil Schiller and former Vice President Al Gore, who round out the stellar list of speakers at our upcoming AsiaD conference.

Taking place from Oct. 19 to 21 in Hong Kong, the lineup is already impressive, with a mix of speakers from China, Japan, Korea and Taiwan, as well as Silicon Valley and elsewhere.

The previously announced speakers include: Alibaba Group’s Jack Ma; Google Android head Andy Rubin; Twitter inventor and product guru, as well as Square co-founder and CEO, Jack Dorsey; Nvidia founder and CEO Jen-Hsun Huang; Asus Chairman Jonney Shih; Sony president and second-in-command Kazuo “Kaz” Hirai; Google+ guru Bradley Horowitz; Hollywood big shot Peter Chernin; Huawei’s North American R&D head John Roese; Microsoft’s Windows Phone head Andy Lees; and a panel of Silicon Valley start-up stars — Joyus’ Sukhinder Singh Cassidy, SurveyMonkey’s Dave Goldberg and Airbnb’s Brian Chesky; Yahoo co-founder Jerry Yang and Asia head Rose Tsou; LivingSocial’s Tim O’Shaughnessy, along with founders of two of its Asian units, Daniel Shin and Paul Srivorakul; Samsung mobile head Dr. Won-Pyo Hong; HTC CEO Peter Chou, who replaces Chairwoman Cher Wang.

Schiller, who reports to Apple’s CEO Tim Cook (and before that, Steve Jobs) is a member of the executive team of the tech icon, where he has worked for 17 years. He is responsible for a swath of Apple’s outward-facing businesses, including product marketing, developer relations and business marketing.

Today, in fact, he was onstage at Apple’s iPhone event, outlining some of its new product offerings. In addition, Apple just opened its first retail store in Hong Kong.

Gore, who had a memorable interview at the fourth D: All Things Digital conference in 2006, needs little introduction. The former VP and Nobel Peace Prize winner is now chairman of Current TV and also continues as a prominent environmental activist.

Gore is on the board of Apple, while also being a senior adviser to Google, which is a neat trick. At the same time, he is a partner in the famed Silicon Valley venture capital firm, Kleiner Perkins, and co-founder and chairman of Generation Investment Management, a partnership that is focused on sustainable investing.

And, as most people know, he knows a thing or two about the Internet.

Walt Mossberg and I could not think of two better people to add to the lineup we have for AsiaD, which has very few seats left.

See you in China in two weeks!

One of the more interesting pieces of news that got pushed deep down in stories in the noisy swirl around AOL’s $315 million acquisition of the Huffington Post was the move of its CEO Eric Hippeau back to the investor side.

He’ll be going to Lerer Ventures, which is run by HuffPo co-founder, chairman and major investor Kenneth Lerer.

(In case you wondered: Yes, everyone is interconnected.)

Before landing at HuffPo in mid-2009, Hippeau was a high-profile venture capitalist at SoftBank Capital for many years, starting with his involvement in the legendary $100 million investment in Yahoo at its start.

Hippeau went to SoftBank Capital after selling Ziff-Davis to its parent SoftBank Corp. for $2.1 billion in 1995.

Now he is headed to Lerer, where Hippeau has been an adviser. It which has been run by Lerer and his son Ben–as well as VC and entrepreneur Jordan Cooper–as an angel investing at early-stage seed level.

About a year ago, the New York-based investment fund raised $8.5 million, all from friends, and has focused on 35 start-ups in the city.

Those have included GroupMe, a group texting service, and ad service AdKeeper.

Now, with the addition of Hippeau as a general partner, while still spending down the initial fund, Lerer Ventures is considering a second fund of up to $50 million to allow it flexibility to invest in later stages.

That’s an increasingly common strategy of late, most prominently at Andreessen Horowitz.

“I am really glad to be getting back into investing, since the New York area is especially vibrant at the moment,” said Hippeau in an interview today, who noted that Lerer Ventures also has some investments in Silicon Valley. “And we are really determined to look at changing the way funds are organized.”

And now that he’ll not have a job with the AOL buy–”It has a very good CEO in Tim Armstrong,” joked Hippeau–and having just also stepped down from the Yahoo board, he will have plenty of time to consider all that.

Hippeau listed social, mobile and commerce as big investment arenas, as well as companies related to tablet devices.

“At the Huffington Post, we could see the changes happening to how we distribute our content were becoming profound,” Hippeau said. “It’s a completely different experience.”

I also talked to Ken Lerer, who said that the fund–started off pretty simply–will be trying to define itself more in the coming months before fundraising begins.

“Ben and Jordan are especially plugged into the New York scene–these start-ups were created by their friends,” he said. “And Eric and I bring a different skill set and perspective on top of that.”

Lerer also expressed interest in commerce, as well as local and real-time technologies.

“While it is always an interesting time on the Internet,” he said, fresh from the AOL sale of the HuffPo, in which he was the largest individual shareholder. “But right now is a really interesting time.”

Twitter execs have often expressed a desire to improve their relevancy and discovery efforts so that the service’s constant stream of updates does not overwhelm users. Now, long after stating the priority, they’ve hired a team to make that happen.

Twitter co-founder Biz Stone had served as an adviser to Fluther, which had been backed with $600,000 in funding from angel investors including Ron Conway, Naval Ravikant, Marc Andreessen, Ben Horowitz, and FF Angel. Three-year-old Fluther had launched its own site, which focused on matching people with questions to experts with answers, as well as on a white-label tool for others to offer Q&A.

Along with announcing the acquisition, Twitter made the stunning disclosure that it now has three times as many employees as it had last year. The company said more than half its team is dedicated to engineering and operations.

Twitter has for most of its existence had plenty of funding, but it started staffing up seriously only in the past year or so, despite recurring problems with uptime. The company just raised $200 million at a $3.7 billion valuation in a round led by Kleiner Perkins.

According to sources close to the situation, the aggressive Russian investment outfit DST Global is out of the running to fund Twitter.

Instead, the prize is almost certainly going to Kleiner Perkins, the legendary Silicon Valley venture firm of Web 1.0 that has been making a big push of late into the Web 2.0 market.

The valuation for the new round–which sources said is well above $150 million–will be from $3.5 billion to $4 billion.

And it is not clear if there are any other smaller investors in this funding, but sources said that was likely.

Sources added that the San Francisco microblogging service will be completing its newest round of funding next week, although Twitter might not even announce it publicly.

The new round will be the first in a year for Twitter.

In the fall of 2009, Twitter raised funding at a $1 billion valuation to help spur its growth to its current size of 325 employees, serving its 175 million users.

Such growth was of interest to DST, which has made giant investments in social networking giant Facebook, social gaming rocket ship Zynga and Groupon, the social buying site that recently ended acquisition talks with Google.

Twitter moving into its next phase of development is an attractive target for many VCs, as it seeks a lucrative way to monetize its popular business.

And, in fact, Kleiner star VC John Doerr has been making a big push to be the big investor in this key next round for Twitter, which also has had regular acquisition interest from both Google and Facebook.

What will be interesting to see is if acquisition interest in Twitter from the pair spikes, given the collapse of Google’s attempt to buy Groupon.

The talks with Twitter began, according to several sources, after Kleiner had considered investing in PostUp–the Twitter search engine and advertising platform start-up from Bill Gross’s Idealab, which was first called TweetUp.

PostUp irked Twitter, and its CEO Dick Costolo was particularly vocal about not allowing third-party ad rivals to create a spammier service.

Sources said it was Bill Campbell, well-known Silicon Valley exec and adviser to multiple companies such as Google, who brought Kleiner and Twitter into discussions.

Campbell’s latest coaching task has been at Twitter.

Kleiner has also recently stepped up its Web 2.0 game with the hiring of high-profile Wall Street analyst Mary Meeker of Morgan Stanley.

She has been brought in to help turbocharge the firm’s digital investment portfolio, especially in social, mobile and commerce.

The move has underscored Kleiner’s noisy intent of late to jump into the social Web market.

After scoring a late entry into the scene with its investment in the fast-growing social gaming start-up Zynga, Kleiner has made a big marketing push recently to allocate a dedicated $250 million “sFund” to social start-ups.

NetworkEffect’s Liz Gannes first wrote of Kleiner’s interest in Twitter a week ago, followed by a report a day later in TechCrunch about Kleiner’s primacy in the Twitter funding race and Doerr’s fervent effort to land the investment.

None of the players mentioned here has responded to BoomTown’s request for a comment.

Bret Taylor

But there’s also a pattern emerging for what happens to that talent once folks arrive at Facebook. Acqhired CEOs hold prominent roles on Facebook’s product team; nearly every recent Facebook product launch seems to have been led by an acqhired employee. Most recently, Facebook Messages was product-managed by Dan Hsiao, who joined the company with the FriendFeed acquisition. Hsiao had actually been a more junior member of the FriendFeed team, having started there as an intern in 2008. Now he is managing what Facebook called the largest engineering team it has ever put together for a launch.

Meanwhile, former FriendFeed CEO Bret Taylor is CTO of Facebook. Hot Potato CEO Justin Shaffer was product manager for Facebook Groups and is now product manager for the company’s Places and Events products (his company was only acquired in August). Divvyshot CEO Sam Odio is now product manager for Facebook Photos. Nextstop CEO Carl Sjogreen now holds the title “head of platform development,” according to a Facebook spokeperson.

And Gokul Rajaram, known for his seminal work as a product manager on Google AdSense, is now in charge of Facebook’s ad technology. Rajaram came to Facebook through the acquisition of his company Chai Labs, also last August. Multiple sources confirmed Rajaram’s role at Facebook, though Facebook declined to.

Gokul Rajaram

Facebook has its reasons for keeping a big-name hire like Rajaram under the radar; for one, Google can’t be happy to have lost the opportunity to buy his start-up. The former Googler has been an adviser and director to multiple companies, including Canoe Ventures and Associated Content.

Elsewhere, Blake Ross and Joe Hewitt from Facebook’s first acquisition, Parakey, have had significant roles on products like Facebook Questions and the Facebook iPhone app. Ross’s title is Director of Product, though he is currently on sabbatical. Hewitt is working on undisclosed projects but “more on the engineering side,” said the spokesperson.

Facebook is not yet talking about where it will assign Sam Lessin, CEO of the just-acquired storage start-up Drop.io, and Cory Ondrejka and Bruce Rogers, founders of the just-acquired gaming start-up Walletin.

Facebook says it has about “two dozen PMs,” so the acqhired folks account for a significant but not dominant portion of that corps.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg told me last month:

We have a big footprint but we want to operate like a startup and take risks, and the best way to do that is to get people who self-select towards being entrepreneurs… The only real theme is that we haven’t bought any companies yet to get the company. It’s always been because we have a lot of respect for the people involved.

This kind of track record may make Facebook an even more enticing acquirer for small start-ups. On the other hand, it’s probably disheartening for Facebook’s homegrown talent to see these opportunities handed to people who are brand-new and who, in many cases, have little experience working at the scale of hundreds of millions of users.

*Facebook has also explored larger acquisitions of companies like Twitter and Foursquare (though Kara Swisher reported those talks were less serious than portrayed elsewhere), but those deals were never consummated.

Please see the disclosure about Facebook in my ethics statement.

Bret Taylor photo (CC) Brian Solis.

While a merger of AOL and Yahoo is a fervent dream of bankers looking for fees, the reality is a little more–shall we say–premature.

In fact, it’s likely it was just those dealmakers, looking to gin up some activity, who are behind the latest spin-riffic article in The Wall Street Journal that reports on machinations by AOL to hire unnamed advisers to carry out all kinds of complex deals.

Actually, it is the complexity of any of those deals that has put a lot of the takeover, buyout, merger and other scenarios that center around Yahoo–with a side of AOL, as well as News Corp., Microsoft, Yahoo Japan, the Alibaba Group–on ice.

Among the issues being grappled with: Onerous tax implications around a variety of deals; a need for complete cooperation from too many players; and the realization that a hookup of AOL and Yahoo might cause more problems than it solves.

“It looks great conceptually and everyone gets all hot and bothered,” said one prominent investor who did his own strategizing about Yahoo and AOL. “But when you actually do the numbers, you hit a pretty big wall of impossible.”

Still, any whiff of a deal makes for a spate of overreaching stories in the press, such as the Journal’s, which sources at both Yahoo and AOL tell me started out as one about how the pair were in preliminary merger discussions.

They are not, unless a call or two between AOL CEO Tim Armstrong and Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz on how to handle the hubbub constitutes preliminary.

It doesn’t, of course, unlike serious merger discussions the companies held several years ago, well before the arrival of either Armstrong or Bartz on the scene.

The Journal story then apparently morphed into one about how AOL was on the hunt to figure out what to do–especially about Yahoo–by hiring new advisers.

Actually, the company has had its same old one, Allen & Co., since it was spun off from Time Warner last year. It has since also retained Bank of America.

Yahoo’s longtime banking adviser has been Goldman Sachs, which was re-engaged more than six weeks ago, only due to all the incoming attention.

That would be from other bankers, private equity firms and others, many of whom have ginned up a variety of schemes and have then pinged both AOL and Yahoo.

Curiously, this kind of activity was reported extensively a month ago here and in the Journal too.

Read the Journal article on October 13:

“AOL Inc. and several private-equity firms are exploring making an offer to buy Yahoo Inc., according to people familiar with the matter, devising a bold plan to marry two big Internet brands facing steep challenges.”

A bold plan to marry? You might want put the honeymoon reservations on hold for now.

That’s because interest does not mean result, especially when it comes to merger scenarios (and, if you are bored, you can read a whole bunch BoomTown came up with in late September).

But, in fact, because the big Yahoo-AOL deal is harder to realize in practice than in theory, things have quieted down and there are no proposals being evaluated by Yahoo or offered by AOL.

And, thus, the dealmakers must begin to chatter again to get things hopping.

Ironically, both boards of AOL and Yahoo should be considering a spate of ideas–however outlandish–to spur growth and innovation in their lackluster businesses.

And, in truth, if some very big players, such as Microsoft, got involved, the smoke around both AOL and Yahoo could someday become a real fire.

(Full disclosure: News Corp. owns Dow Jones, which owns both this site and the Journal.)

Chas Edwards (pictured here), the publisher and chief revenue officer for Digg, the social news discovery service, is leaving the San Francisco company, according to sources.

The exec, who came to Digg in May of 2009 from Federated Media, will move to a start-up called Pixazza, a photo-tagging site for advertising, “by enabling consumers to simply mouse over images to learn more and see related products.”

Edwards’ title at Pixazza–which confirmed the move–will be as Chief Revenue Officer and Publisher Development.

The Mountain View, Calif.-based company has garnered almost $18 million in funding from Google Ventures, CMEA Ventures, August Capital, Foundation Capital and Shasta Ventures, as well as from angel investors Ron Conway, Gideon Yu and Maynard Webb.

The departure from Digg, sources said, is amicable, and Edwards will remain an adviser to the company, which has been undergoing some turmoil of late.

That’s been due to a much-criticized new version of the once-hot service, as well as some management upheaval.

Digg recently appointed Matt Williams as its new CEO. He quickly apologized for the bungled relaunch of the news aggregator and has promised to fix its problems.

Yahoo’s CEO Carol Bartz has been under pressure of late, due to everything from executive turmoil to flat revenue to lack of vision to, perhaps most importantly, a flaccid stock price.

And, as of yesterday, you can add excessive pay to the pile.

That’s because Bartz just topped the list of 25 overpaid CEOs, which is done annually by proxy adviser Glass, Lewis & Co.

A dubious distinction, to say the least.

The San Francisco-based firm pointed to the $39 million Bartz garnered last year from Yahoo (YHOO), which–to be fair–includes both salary and options she has not yet sold.

Still, the huge sum also recently put her atop Fortune magazine’s list of highest-paid women.

Glass Lewis, of course, was using Yahoo’s top exec to make a point:

“Bartz represents a problem we find at many other firms with poor pay-for-performance grades: excessive compensation awarded to executives to encourage them to join or remain with a company.”

Indeed, this big number–however loaded with options based on some level of performance–is one that is sure to draw shareholder ire, due to the fact that the well-paid Bartz is simply not delivering what had been hoped for when she was brought on to shake up Yahoo.

It will be interesting to see if the board of Yahoo–hands down the weakest and most mistake-prone in Silicon Valley–will act in the same way the Microsoft (MSFT) board did with CEO Steve Ballmer.

Although a small thing, especially given how wealthy Ballmer is, the company pointed to the ill-fated venture that was the Kin phone and the slow response to the Apple (AAPL) iPad juggernaut, when giving him only half his maximum bonus recently.

This was despite record revenues at Microsoft, yet still a tiny but encouraging sign that the board has the courage to say: Not good enough.

Will Yahoo’s mousy board members manage to squeak out any such message to Bartz in the months ahead?

Having seen them in action for many years of stumbles now, which has been like watching someone throw himself continually down a flight of stairs, here’s my educated guess: No.

I’m told that Philips has a new job lined up and that he informed Murdoch of his plans in early January. But when I reached him this afternoon, he declined to comment. PaidContent first reported the move.

Philips is a behind-the-scenes guy (though very easy to find at New York media events) who weighed in on much of Murdoch’s digital mergers-and-acquisitions work, as well as big-picture strategy like pay walls, etc. I’d been told repeatedly that he had the ability to launch his own projects within News Corp., though if he did so, I was not aware of it. A recurring rumor mill item had him working on a fabled “LinkedIn-killer” for the company.

News Corp. folks want us to know that Philips was not forced out. But there’s definitely a changing of the guard at the company, occasioned by the ascension of Rupert’s son, James Murdoch.

News Corp. (NWS) owns Dow Jones, which owns this Web site.

Statement attributed to Murdoch:

Jeremy is a very talented executive and I value his strategic contributions to our digital initiatives over the past six years. I fully understand his desire to focus on new entrepreneurial ventures and I wish him all the best in this next step in what will continue to be an exceptional career.

Fadell, one of the chief architects of Apple’s audio strategy (there were obviously others, and top Apple execs sometimes bristle at Fadell being credited with paternity), had been working as an adviser to Apple (AAPL) CEO Steve Jobs since being replaced in November 2008 by former IBM (IBM) exec Mark Papermaster. Now his time in that diminished role has ended and Fadell is moving on.

Fadell’s plans? “My primary focus will be helping the environment by working with consumer green-tech companies,” he told the New York Times, which first reported his departure. “I’m determined to tell my kids and grandkids amazing stories beyond my iPod and iPhone ones.”

The short version is that unlike its broadcast peers, CBS (CBS) has been reluctant to make many of its shows available on the Web because it worries that doing so cuts into its core TV business.

So while GE’s (GE) NBC Universal and News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox put Hulu together, CBS stayed away. And when Disney (DIS) decided to join the joint venture earlier this year, CBS executives argued strenuously against the deal. Instead, CBS has been content to use the Web as a promotional tool for TV via outlets like Google’s (GOOG) YouTube.

The longer version is below, via the transcript of a brief chat I had with Smith this afternoon to discuss his plans and the network’s. This is stuff he’s talked about before–to reporters, in industry forums, and even via emails he wishes he hadn’t written–but I’m running it at length here.

Because 1) I think Smith does a good job of explaining the push-and-pull of Web viewership vs. Web economics that everyone in big media is grappling with, and 2) I want people to see just how difficult it is to keep up when Smith talks. He can get out a lot of words in a relatively short time.

I also had a quick chat with CBS CEO Les Moonves, who made many of the points Smith did, but with less verbiage: I’ll get you that transcript shortly, too.

Peter Kafka: Since you’re going to be advising CBS’s Web video strategy, why don’t you lay out, for the record, where things stand?

Quincy Smith:

We recognize that the Web is two things. It’s both a new medium…and there my example has always been, look at fantasy football: When you’re nice enough to watch the Jets just pound the snot out of the Raiders on Sunday, on a CBS channel…on fantasy football on CBSSports.com, you start on the Tuesday before and end the Wednesday after.

And what are you doing? You’re personalizing it, you’re becoming more of a fan of the game [Smith goes on to praise CBSSports.com's feature set]. All of those things are additive, so when Sunday comes in, you’re actually more of a fan, and you’ve even more convinced you’re going to watch that broadcast show.

Now, I realize that sports is reasonably bulletproof, and a good case study to begin with versus some of the other programming, but the fact is, the Web is a new medium. So what do I also mean? Tech reviews on CNET, Money Watch being watched on BNET. GameSpot videogame reviews.

Access to content that CBS didn’t already have, that are additive–both in their own right online, with the margins that the CNET business is used to, and where we’re getting just stronger and stronger from a margin perspective–and potential content that can also be applied to our [local TV stations owned by CBS], our affiliates, our broadcast news, as well as the radio. So that’s the side of our business that is $600 million revenue and $50 million-plus profit on the bottom line.

The other side of the Web, the side that is most thought of by many journalists, is the threat of an IP-deliverer of video. And how you turn that threat into an opportunity.

And so, from that perspective, as  you know, we didn’t go ahead and say, “Okay, we’re going to lock down and stream, with all of our other peers in broadcast, and come up with the same rules, and embed and right-click this and go away.” I’ve never had a beef with Hulu. Hulu’s always worked as a great service. That’s part of the problem.

As a network, we need to make sure that our content is being seen where the dollars matter. And right now that’s on air. Opportunities like TV Everywhere–we’re not putting all of our eggs in that basket, though we are big advocates of it–are ones where you can actually take and expand and extend the television market online, so it doesn’t matter what screen you watch “CSI” on; what matters is that you watched it, it counts and you saw the ads.

But until that happens, it’s crazy to just stream the shows for zero economics. When in fact you can make a lot more money doing things that are additive and complementary to the rest of the CBS line. That’s where CBS interactive comes in now.

Kafka: But TV viewers are showing an increasing interest in watching their programs on the Web, whether from legal services like the Web or illegal torrents and pirate sites. Don’t you need to reach them where they are?

Smith:

Now, if you really look at those numbers, what they’ll say is [online and offline video are] both growing, right? We’re having the best year ever as America’s largest broadcast network, and I think that 99.9 percent of that–this is the quote I’ve never been able to get in there–is that’s [because] of the great content that we have. There’s some infinitesimal basis point that’s relevant [to CBS ratings because] we are making sure that when people watch it, they’re more inclined to watch it on television. For now.

Once that solution moves, once those economics move–whether that’s more ads, [higher] CPMs, more ad buyers….You and I can say all day long, “We’re sold out on Web video. That’s going really well. It’s sold out.” Well, no kidding, it’s sold out. It’s a $700 million market. The television market is $120 billion. And of that, $700 million, half of those [ad buyers] are spending  90 percent of their time doing Google keywords, not buying online video.

The key is, how do you turn television buyers into video buyers? And that’s where a solution like TV Everywhere comes into play.

And by the way, looking at [Hulu CEO Jason] Kilar’s comments the other day, in Colorado [at an industry convention], he sees that too. He’s more sophisticated on this stuff than most anybody. From the perspective of, he understands that’s where the big dollars are. And so he probably went at it as, “I’m going to aggregate all the people first, so hopefully things like TV everywhere come to us.” From our perspective at CBS, we’ve got to go to them.

I don’t hate Hulu. Hulu’s world-class video viewing. What I don’t understand is, why license all that content to something that works that well, that seamlessly, yet–without the economic model around it?

Parsons will be a part-time adviser says the New York Times and will keep his current job as Citigroup (C) chairman as well. Providence’s media bets include MGM and Univision, which haven’t worked out, and Hulu, which has.

Providence and Parsons have worked together at least once before: In 2004, Parsons sold Warner Music Group (WMG) to a consortium that included Providence, Thomas H. Lee Partners and Edgar Bronfman Jr.

Perhaps Providence will tap Parsons’s knowledge of his former employer for another deal: Time Warner executives keep murmuring about the need for magazine publisher Time Inc. to shed some of the 115 titles it operates.

Kundra, who has served as a technology policy adviser for President Obama, will oversee federal technology spending, among other things. “Vivek Kundra will bring a depth of experience in the technology arena and a commitment to lowering the cost of government operations to this position,” Obama said in a statement. “I have directed him to work to ensure that we are using the spirit of American innovation and the power of technology to improve performance and lower the cost of government operations. As Chief Information Officer, he will play a key role in making sure our government is running in the most secure, open, and efficient way possible.”

If stories about Kundra’s enthusiasm for Google (GOOG) and Apple (AAPL) products are any indication, we can expect to see some big changes in the way federal technology spending is handled. “One of the biggest problems in government is that process has trumped outcome,” Kundra once said. “As everyone is focused on compliance, no one is thinking about innovation.”

Kundra, who has served as a technology policy adviser for President Obama, will oversee federal technology spending, among other things. “Vivek Kundra will bring a depth of experience in the technology arena and a commitment to lowering the cost of government operations to this position,” Obama said in a statement. “I have directed him to work to ensure that we are using the spirit of American innovation and the power of technology to improve performance and lower the cost of government operations. As Chief Information Officer, he will play a key role in making sure our government is running in the most secure, open, and efficient way possible.”

If stories about Kundra’s enthusiasm for Google (GOOG) and Apple (AAPL) products are any indication, we can expect to see some big changes in the way federal technology spending is handled. “One of the biggest problems in government is that process has trumped outcome,” Kundra once said. “As everyone is focused on compliance, no one is thinking about innovation.”

What a lousy week for the digital GOP.

First, John McCain’s domestic policy adviser conjures up a PR disaster by crediting the senator with the development of the Blackberry–odd, since McCain’s not exactly a digital native. Then former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina says U.S. vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s not qualified to run HP. And now, Palin’s Yahoo email account has been hacked and its contents published to Wikileaks. Serves her right for using Yahoo Mail.

What at astonishingly tech-savvy presidential ticket. Keystone Kops on the campaign trail.

The McCain-Palin campaign and Yahoo (YHOO) haven’t yet confirmed the authenticity of the hack or the published emails, but Amy McCorkell, a member of Alaska’s Advisory Board on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, tells Wired that one of her messages to Palin is among those posted to Wikileaks.

An ugly turn of events for Palin, who’s been criticized recently for using her Yahoo Mail account to conduct official government business. Uglier still if the deletion of Palin’s Yahoo accounts is considered an obstruction of justice.

UPDATE: McCain-Palin 2008 Campaign Manager Rick Davis just issued the following statement on the matter: “This is a shocking invasion of the Governor’s privacy and a violation of law. The matter has been turned over to the appropriate authorities and we hope that anyone in possession of these emails will destroy them. We will have no further comment.”

That response would seem to resolve the authenticity issue. Now whom do we have to bomb to get those emails off the Web?