Once promising to be the most-scrutinized corporate governance event in history, this Friday's meeting of Yahoo shareholders will now likely unfold in anticlimactic fashion, diffused by the forced-coziness between Carl Icahn and Yahoo's board. (Take our poll and vote on which of Icahn's candidates for board seats are stinkers.)

So as we approach the six-month anniversary of Microsoft's initial run at Yahoo, what better time to assess the overall game of the Micro-hoo-gle-cahn saga?

After dozens of parses over the past six months, Jack Flack has identified several reality-challenged themes that collectively explain why no player in the drama as emerged as the good guy, or even the smart guy.

So to entertain you while the proxies are being tabulated, Jack Flack presents "The 10 Tastiest Porky Pies of Micro-hoo-gle-cahn."

1. Microsoft: "Dominance is bad."

   On February 1, Microsoft set the porcine tone by presenting itself as the new champion of choice, explicitly declaring that the deal represented the best chance at avoiding a Google monopoly.
   
   The message itself was credible, but the source was not. After all, wasn't it just a few minutes ago that Microsoft was the unstoppable Evil Empire? The reality is that most people do indeed want to see a counter-balance to Google's power ... but they're not particularly thrilled to have that balance come from Microsoft.




2. Google: "Dominance is bad."

   Baited by the brazen assertions of Microsoft's sudden new piety, Google couldn't even make it through the weekend without shrieking about the hypocrisy.
   
   Quickly coming to it senses, Google then tip-toed away from future public attacks, realizing that dominance pot was not one they wanted to be stirring. The reality is that Google should move as slowly as possible with its Yahoo alliance, which is sure to trigger government intervention.
   
   

3. Yahoo: "We've got a winning plan."

   Languishing for five years, Yahoo consistently ignored shareholders demands for a clear strategic direction, or at least a workable business plan. But after coming under siege, Yahoo somehow suddenly developed just such a plan.
   
   

   Unfortunately, it included the classic "hockey stick" turn-around, in which the initial need for intensified investment kills profits over the next couple of years, but miraculously produces a radical up-tick three or four years later.
   
   Consequently, no matter how many times Yahoo says "starting point" or "must buy," most investors simply don't see any meat in the sandwich.
   
   

4. Microsoft: "We don't need Yahoo."

   Trying to strengthen its negotiating position, Microsoft has consistently insisted it doesn't need to do the deal. While Ballmer's mantra of "Yahoo is a tactic, not a strategy" is an appropriate way to frame the deal if it gets done, it comes off as pure sour grapes when the deal evaporates. The reality is that any Microsoft "strategy" for search will require the scale that only a Yahoo acquisition can provide.




5. Icahn: "Making huge amounts of money while doing nothing of value is a crime."

   Trying to counter the greed-is-good mantra of his Hollywood incarnation, Icahn has long wrapped his opportunism in the flag of responsible governance, railing about lazy, inept corporate bosses who are disgustingly overpaid by each other.
   
   Once again, the message is credible, but the source is not, as most people don't really see harvesting billions of dollars with a few weeks of brinksmanship as particularly noble work, either. The reality is that Icahn could have established far better credibility in this particular deal by simply sticking to the cold valuation mathematics.
   
   

6. Microsoft: "We're done ... and this time we mean it."

   Assumedly motivated by the need to get a deal done before the next presidential administration tightens the antitrust screws, Microsoft has resembled the jilted lover who never can quite let enough time pass before showing up drunk in the front yard, asking if now might be a good time to get back together. Thus, the Yahoo stock never fully craters the way it would if the market truly believed a Microsoft deal would never ultimately happen.
   
   The reality is that allowing Google to be the sole beneficiary of the massive cash generated by search will indeed severely compromise Microsoft's ability to compete with Google on an overall basis as the next tech era emerges.
   
   

7. Yahoo: "The alliance with Google is good, and will get approved."

   From a pure business standpoint, the Google alliance looks a like willing sacrifice of the long-term prospects of its core business in exchange for short-term "independence." From a regulatory standpoint, it looks like a deal that will survive only if it's watered down into nothing.
   
   The reality is that the alliance has largely served its purpose of getting Yahoo through its shareholder meeting without a full coup, and the agreement will collapse under the slightest regulatory frisking.
   
   

8. Icahn: "My buddies are in agreement with me."

   Casting and recasting himself as the ultimate superdelegate, Icahn seems to delight in sharing details of how many phone calls, meetings or weekend sleepovers he's had with either Microsoft or Yahoo.
   
   The reality is that while most of the coverage indicates Icahn has swung from one camp to the other, the famed corporate raider will never be half-trusted in either.
   
   

9. Yahoo: "Ballmer has acted erratically just to destabilize Yahoo."

   Perhaps the most telling indication of Jerry Yang's strained sense of reality is that Steve Ballmer would willingly sacrifice his own personal reputation as an executive just to torment of the innocent citizens of Yahooville. The reality is that Ballmer surely does want to do a deal, but became just as emotional about it as Yang.




10. All: "The other guy cannot be trusted because he changes his mind."

    Calling your opponent a flip-flopper may have some benefit in politics. But in business, changing your mind as the conditions change is simply considered good common sense.