A good bet: Veoh, one of the best-funded would-be YouTubes. Multiple sources tell me the company is aggressively marketing itself in hopes of finding a buyer.

And if a deal does go through, it will result in a loss for the company’s high-profile backers, who include former Disney (DIS) CEO Michael Eisner and Goldman Sachs (GS). I’m told that CEO Dmitry Shapiro has been shopping the company at prices below $70 million, which is the amount investors have sunk into the portal since 2005.

What happened to Veoh? The same thing that happened to almost every other Web video portal that isn’t Google’s (GOOG) YouTube or Hulu: Not enough audience, not enough ad revenue, too many costs.

Veoh claims an audience of about 25 million users, which is less than auditors like comScore (SCOR) report, and is, in any case, an order of magnitude smaller than YouTube’s. Sources tell me the company lost money on revenue of about $6 million last year. Sales are up and executives are optimistic it could break even this year, but the trajectory isn’t high enough to keep Veoh afloat as an independent company.

Complicating matters for Veoh is a costly court battle with Vivendi’s Universal Music Group, which accuses the company of copyright violations. That two-year-old fight has cost the start-up millions in legal fees.

The fact that Veoh’s backers include media-savvy players like Time Warner (TWX); former Viacom executives Tom Freston and Jonathan Dolgen; and Spark Capital, one of the primary investors in Twitter, hasn’t been enough to help the company extricate itself from the suit.

In April, Veoh laid off a good chunk of its staff, replaced CEO Steve Mitgang with Shapiro, the company’s founder, and focused its energy on a new “Video Compass” player that users are supposed to download and install in their Web browsers.

At the time, Shapiro said that the company’s Web portal business was a success but acknowledged that “quite frankly, there are a lot of things like that.”

So who would buy Veoh? Theoretically, at the right price, the company could be attractive to a large Web player like a Yahoo (YHOO), which used to be a big player in video back when video was a small market. Or the company could try marketing its technical expertise to a cable/telco company like Time Warner Cable (TWC) that hasn’t done much with online video but says it will soon.

But rival Web portal Joost tried making the same pitch to various buyers over the last few months and couldn’t get a deal done. Last week Joost laid off most of its staff and said it would try to go it alone as a services company.

This kind of flux is now par for the course among the big Web portals that thought they could rival YouTube, or at least secure second place. But Google’s lead over everyone else in video gets bigger every day, and its primary competitor is now Hulu, which has the advantage of premium content from its Hollywood owners–Disney, GE’s (GE) NBC Universal, and News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox.

In addition to Veoh and Joost, France’s DailyMotion has swapped out CEOs in recent months and is reportedly looking to raise money. Meanwhile, Metacafe, yet another video hub, has hired boutique investment bank Think Equity to look for “strategic investors to provide expansion capital.”

Metacafe CEO Erick Hachenburg says his company doesn’t need the money and can survive on its own if it doesn’t go ahead with a deal. “You would expect in this marketplace that you’re going to have a shakeout, and the stronger players are going to make it,” he says.

That sounds right. The question is whether we’ll have more than two players left when this is all over.

Recently, while I was at a conference in Los Angeles, I caught up with Veoh Founder Dmitry Shapiro.

BoomTown will be focusing a lot on online video this year and Veoh is one of the several online video-sharing sites–a group of smaller players that includes sites like Joost, Hulu, Dailymotion, Vimeo and others that I like to call not-YouTube.

But there are pluses to not being the Google-owned (GOOG) video behemoth, in that major entertainment companies who want to figure out how to put their content online aren’t wondering all day long whether to hug or sue you (or both if you are Sumner Redstone).

Today, for example, the Los Angeles-based Veoh announced that the ABC (DIS) television network would put full episodes of its hot prime-time shows–such as “Ugly Betty” (love it) and “Desperate Housewives” (not so much)–up on the site on a non-exclusive basis.

While Veoh has a lot of short, user-generated material, it has also made a push to get more professional material from big media companies like CBS (CBS)–which wins kudos for being the most promiscuous of networks–on its service.

Interestingly in this deal, media connections seem at play here: Disney-owned ABC is giving over content to Veoh, which has former Disney poobah Michael Eisner as one of its principal investors.

The traffic-type deal is typical–Veoh gets paid to send audience to ABC’s site or gets it to use ABC’s really nice player, and ABC tries to monetize it. Veoh currently says it has 28 million unique monthly visitors.

Of course, Veoh is also trying to figure out that nettlesome monetization issue that all online video sites face, which centers on building audience with the attractive big media content and then getting them to watch other ad-supported fare on its site.

But, as with all video sites, it is still in the early stages and, thus, Veoh got another tidy pile of new funding just two weeks ago to help it muddle through.

That would be $30 million more to add to the kitty of about $40 million previously raised.

Along with existing investors–Shelter Capital Partners, Spark Capital, Goldman Sachs (GS), Eisner’s Tornante Company, Tom Freston’s Firefly3, Time Warner (TWX) Investments and Jonathan Dolgen–Veoh’s latest round included Intel Capital, Adobe Systems (ADBE) and also media and tech investor Gordon Crawford.

I talked to Shapiro, who now serves as Veoh’s chief innovation officer, about the money and more here:

Called “The Comeback Id” (oh, how pun-ny!), the article has gotten a lot of attention for pointing out the rampant speculation that Clinton’s well-known penchant for marital infidelity had returned.

And the reason for that disturbing development, besides Clinton himself? The piece actually placed a good bit of the blame on Clinton’s close friend, grocery magnate and billionaire Ron Burkle (pictured here), who also has been one of the key directors at Yahoo (YHOO) in its takeover fight with Microsoft (MSFT).

It’s a wonder Burkle can focus on the turmoil at Yahoo, given how busy he appears to be in the article corrupting Clinton both personally and–worse–professionally, via some questionable investments the pair had made through Burkle’s Yucaipa Companies.

Writer Todd Purdum paints a decidedly unattractive picture of Burkle, noting even the tasteless nickname of Burkle’s plane these days, in a portrayal so rough that Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang’s tough treatment by the press recently looks like a walk in the park.

Well, almost.

In what amounts to a rant by Carl Icahn (pictured here), The Wall Street Journal gives the billionaire investor lots of room to kvetch about what he thinks of Yang, including asserting that he will oust the Yahoo founder if he wins his proxy fight against the company.

“I am amazed at the lengths that Jerry Yang and the board went to entrench themselves in this situation,” said Icahn.

Apparently, Icahn was the only one who didn’t get the memo that Yahoo has been consistently obstreperous about Microsoft’s many overtures, since–well, let’s do the exact calculations–forever. And a day.

Still, Icahn perseveres and hangs this old entrenched management chestnut on a lawsuit that was recently filed by shareholders that points to the massive and costly severance plan Yahoo sneakily put into place as a ploy to fend off Microsoft.

“It’s no longer a mystery to me why Microsoft’s offer isn’t around,” Icahn said. “How can Yahoo keep saying they’re willing to negotiate and sell the company on the one hand, while at the same time they’re completely sabotaging the process without telling anyone.”

How? By Yang opening his mouth, that’s how, and then doing nothing much.

As a student of this lugubrious style of Olympic dithering, I would point Icahn to Yang’s 100-day Sacred Cow VisionQuest, well before this soap opera got started.

You need to catch up pronto, Carl!

And speaking of people irked by Yang of late, investor Gordon Crawford (pictured here) also made some news yesterday with his investment in Veoh Networks, part of a $30 million round that included Intel Capital and Adobe Systems (ADBE).

Existing investors in the not-YouTube video service–Shelter Capital, Spark Capital, Goldman Sachs (GS), Michael Eisner’s Tornante Company, Time Warner Investments (TWX) and Jonathan Dolgen–also ponied up more money.

Crawford, the SVP of Capital Research Global Investors, manages a massive portfolio, and it is one of Yahoo’s biggest shareholders.

And, unlike Veoh, Yahoo is an investment Crawford has not been happy with recently.

“I am extremely angry at Jerry Yang and at the so-called independent board,” he said in an interview a month ago. “I’m hoping that there is such an outpouring of outrage that the board is embarrassed into revisiting this thing, but I’m not optimistic about that.”

And by independent board, by the way, he meant directors like–you guessed it–Ron Burkle!

At least Burkle’s not to blame for the so-so, lots-and-lots-missing–Google? What Google? (GOOG)–piece in the same Vanity Fair issue, an oral history of the Internet.

Called “How the Web Was Won,” it makes the founding of the world’s most important medium seem awfully dull.

I’d recommend instead–as any sentient being would–the cover story on Angelina Jolie, with this sharp quote from her: “In my father’s generation, the product was 80% of what you were putting into the world, and your personal life was 20%. It now seems that 80% of the product I put out is silly, made-up stories and what I’m wearing.”

Or not wearing, in the case of the pictures of Jolie in this article.

The one-time mighty conference has obviously lagged, as the way the entertainment industry buys and sells programming has drastically changed over the years.

Also a concern: the impact of interactive technologies–digital issues seemed to be the biggest topic for attendees.

I was there, for example, for a panel–called “Possibilities and Perils of Internet TV”–about online video with Walt Disney head Michael Eisner (pictured here), former Viacom head Jonathan Dolgen and Dmitry Shapiro, founder and CIO of Veoh.

Both Eisner and Dolgen are investors in Veoh–one of the many online video services out there. And Eisner has been dabbling in the new-media content space with several efforts at original programming.

The conversation was lively, with Eisner bullish that the online video market would explode in the coming years, both in terms of influence and profitability.

He compared the situation to the early days of cable television and also noted that it would take a new generation of talent to make it happen at lower costs.

And Eisner quite correctly noted that a lot of the new stuff that is being produced for the Web from Hollywood is simply weak material that failed to get on television.

But he did point to all sorts of interesting experimentation going on, and said he was convinced that advertisers would eventually follow.

Both he and also Dolgen expected the advent of better editorial control and programming efforts would increase audience.

I was less sanguine, in my ongoing role as official grump of the Web, wondering how overblown production costs and this-is-the-way-we-do-it stubbornness in Hollywood would change.

More importantly, I am still waiting for better answers on how really serious money will be made in the medium.

In any case, here is a short video I made, with interviews with Shapiro and Dolgen. Of course, Mr. Online Video, Eisner, declined to be interviewed by me and my little annoying Flip camera:

I am back in Sin City to appear on a panel at the National Association of Television Program Executives (NATPE) conference here today, along with former Walt Disney head Michael Eisner, former Viacom head Jonathan Dolgen and Dmitry Shapiro, founder and CIO of Veoh.

Titled “Possibilities and Perils of Internet TV,” it should be an interesting discussion, since I think it is all peril at this point with very little to show in the possibility column.

While there have been a lot of attempts to create Internet TV–and by this I don’t mean delivering traditional television via IP–most of what is out there is repurposed professional content that Hollywood hopes we will think is newfangled and, via easy-to-post user-generated material, a more massive version of “America’s Funniest Home Videos.”

In other words, bad Web programs and a whole lot of videos of cats on skateboards. As for profits from all this: Not so much.

Nonetheless, the television industry is changing dramatically. With the backdrop of the writers’ strike, the situation is even more volatile, as viewers migrate away from the network model and toward, well, who knows?

Both Eisner and Dolgen are investors in Veoh–one of the many online video services out there, this one aimed at professional content. And Eisner has been dabbling in the new media content space to mixed results.

I wrote about Eisner back in November when he jumped on the Blame-Steve-Jobs bandwagon, saying Apple was to blame for Hollywood’s woes.

Said Eisner–whose tense relationship with Jobs was well known–then: “[Movie and television studios] make deals with Steve Jobs, who takes them to the cleaners. They make all these kinds of things, and who’s making money? Apple! They should get a piece of Apple. If I was a union, I’d be striking up wherever he is.”

I will be sure to ask him about that comment.