Super Bowl XLIII is nearly upon us, multimillion dollar ads in tow, and since there’s never been as much video, connectivity or interactivity as there is right now, the whole thing is shaping up to be quite the Web 2.0 extravaganza.

From YouTube to Twitter to Facebook and beyond, here’s your guide to all the digital venues available to view, vote on and even interact with in this year’s lineup of ad campaigns.

There is no shortage of sites on which to watch (and rewatch, again and again) the ads: NBC, the game’s official broadcaster, Spike, YouTube, and Hulu, to name just a few (see below for a list). Many of these sites have already aggregated a number of previews and will allow you to vote for your favorite commercials or rank them.

Speaking of Hulu, the video site has created a customizable Super Bowl ad widget that will allow you to display and vote on the ads and can be embedded into Web sites or blogs. The Hulu folks have also been spreading some talk about how they will “reveal the secret behind Hulu” during Super Bowl Sunday. Really, Hulu? We are sweating in anticipation (not).

Many of the companies whose ads will be featured during the game also have content on their corporate Web sites. Some–like the Orlando Sentinel–are playing coy, releasing only teaser clips about their actual ad–essentially creating a commercial about a commercial. It has something to do with a kid in a cape, accompanied by some very somber background piano music.

Others have already released full versions of their ads online. Internet domain company Go Daddy has put two titillating ads up on its site starring sexy race car driver Danica Patrick, fresh from her big debut last year. The company will also feature Internet-only ads with a more salacious spin on the made-for-TV ones.

Meanwhile, sites like Spotbowl and Superbowl-Ads have aggregated lots of information about the commercials. Spotbowl has collected industry rumors and reports and boasts a fairly detailed list of all of this year’s ad sponsors, noting the type of commercial(s) each will play and behind-the-scenes information on many of them.

Superbowl-Ads presents perhaps the most complete Web 2.0 package, which will not only feature the commercials online, but has established a Facebook and Twitter presence as well. Its Facebook site features much of the same content as the site, but also has a video viewer, news tracker apps and discussion board.

And you can even befriend the famous Etrade Baby, who will make another appearance this year. Find him on Twitter under “etradebaby,” although he hasn’t had much to say so far. At the time of this writing, his most recent, and rather cryptic, message was, “I have very little time or patience for clowns.”

You can also follow Superbowl-Ads on Twitter under “superbowlad,” or search #superads09 and #sb43ads for a constant stream of relevant links, information and chatter leading up to and going into the big game.

Meanwhile, Forrester analyst Jeremiah Owyang will be conducting a “TwitterBowl” experiment during the game whereby you can send in your votes to @superbowlads (with an “s” at the end), commenting on the ads and giving each a rating of up to five stars.

Even iTunes is in on the party this year, as you’ll be able to download original music from Pepsi’s SoBe Lifewater ad. Said commercial is one of the few that will be shown in 3-D, provided that you’ve picked up your new 3-D glasses, since the old red-and-blues won’t do the trick, apparently.

So digitally speaking, you’re all ready for the big game. That is, unless, you were looking for actual information about that big game, in which case you’d probably do better somewhere else.

Super Bowl ad watch sites:

NBC
Hulu
Spike
Superbowl-ads
Spotbowl
NFL
Fanhouse
Myspace
Youtube
Adweek

As has been copiously reported here and all over, Yahoo and AOL have been engaged in never-ending talks about a possible deal to merge their flagging Internet businesses.

Now, sources tell me, the circle of executives at both companies interfacing with each other has been widened, for purposes of due diligence.

That chit-chatting includes Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang, who has been in New York several times recently [UPDATE: But not yesterday, in a story I had previously linked to here]–where AOL parent, Time Warner, is located–to meet once with its CEO, Jeff Bewkes, and see if they can actually complete the merger.

Now, all this frantic activity does not mean a deal will necessarily be struck. In fact, in typical Yahoo style, it is going very slowly and that is never a good thing in dealmaking.

But it is this kind of ramped-up blabbery that has many at both companies predicting–hoping, really–that a deal will go through, sooner or later, as soon as Time Warner and Yahoo can agree on a price.

Or, more precisely, a percentage, since Yahoo’s stock price has been falling like a particularly sharp knife of late.

Sources said Yahoo does not want Time Warner (TWX) to have any more than 25 percent of the new company in a trade for AOL’s assets–although that figure would be slightly more if the media giant throws in some of that “Harry Potter”-generated cash into the deal kitty.

Yahoo (YHOO) management, sources said, also think its assets are of significantly better quality than AOL’s, and it still has that powerful–although declining–share in the lucrative search market.

Thus, it does not want to pay the $8 to $10 billion price Time Warner wants, and it should not either. (Here is a good analysis on the price issue by Silicon Alley Insider’s Henry Blodget.)

But Yahoo shares closed yesterday at a troubling $14.58, down 73 cents, or almost five percent.

That means its market valuation also declined by many billion dollars very quickly. It is now at $20.2 billion.

These profound stock drops, said several sources, could spur Yahoo to act before it gets even worse, which is why talks have been more frequent in recent weeks.

While not the best state of mind, panic is always a good motivator, and both companies are surely desperate to turbocharge themselves in the face of tough competition and avoidable management mishaps in recent years.

The hope? That together the pair can do better than they have separately–by combining their advertising, content and communications assets, which are among the largest in the world.

In addition, the “new” Yahoo would be able to make massive cost cuts, including layoffs, under the cover of integration and starting off with a clean slate.

So who would emerge more powerful in a new set-up–AOL or Yahoo?

Here’s a short cheat list:

Content:

AOL and Yahoo have a similar range of content assets, with big sites in all the classic categories, like news, financial, sports and lifestyles. Yahoo’s content head is Scott Moore, while AOL’s is Bill Wilson (both pictured here, left to right).

As I wrote yesterday, I expect that the more dominant Yahoo will rule, slashing and burning most of the AOL-branded properties, keeping only interesting newer brands like sports blog FanHouse, celeb blog TMZ and the Engadget, Tuaw and JoyStiq tech blogs.

And while former Microsoftie Moore is the likely head of this behemoth, don’t count on the very adept Wilson, who is known as a skilled corporate player at AOL, to stick around without a big role in this arena.

Communications:

Again, advantage Yahoo, which has bigger calendaring, email and instant messaging assets, an area once overwhelmingly dominated by AOL. That was then, of course.

Still, AOL’s communications tools are used by a huge audience worldwide and the pair together would be a powerhouse. So much so, in fact, that this might be the one major regulatory hurdle any deal would face.

Advertising:

Again, Yahoo would probably dominate, having just hired well-known former Microsoft exec Joanne Bradford to head up U.S. advertising sales. AOL’s top ad exec is Lynda Clarizio, a former lawyer who is considered dogged but much less experienced than Bradford. (Both are pictured here, right to left.)

And, Yahoo does have its search ad business, however weakening, and a stronger graphical ad business, even if the sector will be most under siege in the current down economy.

Plus, AOL’s Advertising.com, while a major ad network, is more of a business subject to bruising competition and squeezed margins.

Community:

Tapan Bhat (pictured here) now rules community at Yahoo, as well as its homepage, having just inherited it from the departing Brad Garlinghouse.

But AOL has a savvy and voluble exec in Joanna Shields, who came recently via its Bebo social-networking acquisition. While AOL woefully overpaid for Bebo and got played into thinking that other bidders were more interested than they actually were, it was Shields (pictured here) who essentially did that playing.

Sign her up for a top exec role in the combined company pronto!

In all seriousness, there is room for both in the newco, as both AOL and Yahoo seriously bite in the social-networking space. They will surely need a lot more than Bhat and Shields if they want to become true players in Web 2.0′s hottest and probably most important trend.

Engineering:

Yahoo. I do not need to explain this, do I?

Okay: AOL has always been incompetent in the technical arena, since its beginning days, compared with Silicon Valley companies like Yahoo.

All yours, Ash Patel!

Management:

Now, it is here that it gets interesting.

Most feel the push by Yang to do an AOL deal–and make no mistake, it is being pushed by him most of all–is due to increased pressure from his board, as well as major investors, who have had just about enough of his leadership.

“There is no way Jerry stays on as CEO in a newco,” said one source about Yang (pictured here). “He’ll be kicked upstairs as chairman, and I will think [President Sue] Decker will also have to go eventually, since there will be a lot of resistance if she is named CEO.”

But, said other sources, these major management changes will not happen immediately, if at all, as it is too distracting in the wake of a deal and ruins the positive “story” that both companies will surely want to spin.

And spin they will! (Go, Tricia! Go, Jill!)

And while he has a reputation for sharkish political skills, especially compared to Yahoo’s very diplomatic U.S. head, Hilary Schneider, expect AOL President Ron Grant to be an important part of the transition, since he is good–almost too good–at cutting costs.

Most expect his boss, AOL CEO Randy Falco, not to be part of the new company, thereby separating him and Grant, who are nicknamed “Smithers and Burns” at AOL, after “The Simpsons” creepy duo.

Most likely, there will be a search for a top-level CEO to take over the combined company–someone of the stature of New Corp.’s No. 2 Peter Chernin or eBay’s former leader Meg Whitman (except now, she is apparently Sen. John McCain’s pick for Treasury Secretary, if the Republican Presidential candidate were to win the election).

“If this has any chance of working out, the board has to push restart on the leadership,” said one person close to the situation, who notes that this deal is Yang’s last chance to truly impact the future of the company he co-founded and preserve its legacy. “Everyone gets that, even Jerry.”

But I think the idea that Yang would leave if there were to be a merger of Yahoo with AOL is wishful thinking on the part of his critics.

He appears tome to be very committed to seeing his vision of turning around Yahoo through.

And those who have counted him out always seem to be the ones who have been typically wrong, such as Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and shareholder activist Carl Icahn.

Because, for all the turmoil at Yahoo, it’s Yang still calling the shots.

Back in the first season of “Saturday Night Live,” one running catchphrase uttered by Chevy Chase would always crack the then-12-year-old BoomTown right up: “This breaking news just in: Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.”

It’s that same kind of extreme déjà vu I feel with the continuing drip-drip-drip of the news-less news that Time Warner’s AOL and Yahoo are still talking about a merger.

Both Silicon Alley Insider’s (and soon-to-be AllThingsD.com blogger) Peter Kafka and I wrote extensively about the talks on in mid-September, noting that the discussions centered around merging AOL’s content, advertising and software assets with Yahoo (minus the access business).

There were the price issues–Yahoo wanted to pay between $6 and $8 billion, while Time Warner has long wanted $10 billion–as well as the worries about integration (East Coasties versus West Coasties) and email dominance monopoly problems.

As I wrote on Sept. 23, for example:

That support will be especially important if Yahoo tries to buy AOL, which it is again strongly considering as a way to bolster its ad business, international portfolio and email and content offerings.

Several sources I have spoken to recently have said that Yahoo leadership is very interested in doing such a deal, although not at the $10 billion price tag that Time Warner wants. (Think half and add a little more.)

In addition, there are some daunting regulatory and integration issues–AOL and Yahoo email and messaging combo would be a giant in the space, and the HQs of the companies are on opposite coasts.

But, the deal would give Yahoo some more experienced executives it needs and make it more attractive to others who might not consider going to Yahoo in its present state.

Yang had been pinging a lot of execs over the last year and has had little uptake.

But a stronger and more flexible Yahoo–i.e., it knows it has to change dramatically–would surely be more enticing, especially in a down economy.”

Now comes yet another story yesterday from TechCrunch that the talks are–wait for it–still on.

The story recounted similar details and added even older ideas from previously reported AOL-Yahoo talks (some multi-billion-dollar cash infusion from Time Warner, for example).

And, said TechCrunch, it could happen this month!

Good gracious–October is, like, a really long month. And, if not October, I guess November is good or maybe December. Hey, what about 2009?

Actually, what everyone really would like to know is what the heck is taking Time Warner (TWX) and Yahoo (YHOO) so long, hashing over the same issues (price mostly), especially if it is such a stellar idea?

And, with the economy crashing all around and Yahoo’s and Time Warner’s stock hitting five-year lows, one has to wonder what, exactly, the pair are waiting for?

A more fortuitous reading of the entrails? A sign from the heavens? Better winds?

Well, I hate to inform Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes and Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang, but the tide is not turning anytime soon, and both their companies are getting weaker by the minute.

I once called the pairing of AOL and Yahoo a little like leaning two drunks against each other to keep them from toppling over.

Looking back, I will admit that was a little harsh.

Given the stakes now, though–and especially if Yahoo has to abandon its controversial search ad outsourcing deal with Google (GOOG)–it makes sense to combine forces.

In the online ad space, for example, Yahoo and AOL mostly complement each other. The same is true in email and communications tools. And, while Bebo is not the prize Time Warner touted it as, despite paying a king’s ransom for it, Yahoo has no social-networking property.

The only area of true overlap is in content. Here, based on many sources, I would imagine if a deal is ever struck that Yahoo will slash and burn most of AOL-branded properties, keeping only interesting newer brands like sports blog FanHouse, celeb blog TMZ and the Engadget, Tuaw and JoyStiq tech blogs.

And, in fact, if the pair even gets its act together–this or next week would be great for us–it will give them the much-needed impetus to start making the massive cuts needed at both Web outfits for a long time now.

In that regard, look for an AOL exec like its President Ron Grant to be buttonholed to swing that particular ax.

Yahoo, with its less confrontational culture, has never been good at that kind of thing. For all its many flaws, it is a talent AOL will surely bring to the party.

If, of course, Yahoo and AOL ever manage to throw one before they become too much like Generalissimo Franco.

You know: Still dead.