From CNN.com:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Sunday he’s still trying to keep Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman within the Democratic caucus despite anger over Lieberman’s support of Republican presidential nominee John McCain.

While he has opposed Democratic efforts to end the war in Iraq, “Joe Lieberman votes with me a lot more than a lot of my senators,” Reid told CNN’s “Late Edition.”

“Joe Lieberman is not some right-wing nutcase,” he said.

SIDEBAR: Reid-speak translation: Everyone in the Senate GOP is a right-wing nutcase. END SIDEBAR

“Joe Lieberman is one of the most progressive people ever to come from the state of Connecticut.”

Lieberman, a Democrat-turned-independent, broke with the party over the war in Iraq and ran as an independent after losing the party’s nomination in 2006. Since then, he has been the 51st vote that kept the Senate in Democratic hands.

... Reid said it was up to the Democratic caucus to make any decision about Lieberman’s future, noting that, “Quite frankly, I don’t like what he did.” But he pointed out that Lieberman has supported Democrats on most issues, including an important budget vote earlier this year.

“For those people beating up on Joe Lieberman, I’ve done my share,” he said. “Recognize the glass being half full, not half empty.”

See Harry Reid.

See Harry Reid make nice.

See Harry Reid make nice with Joe Lieberman after threatening him last week.

Might Harry Reid have seen poll results from outstanding Senate races?

Also, everyone’s been waiting to see whether the president-elect himself would intervene to help Lieberman. Chief-of-staff-in-waiting Rahm Emanuel has weighed in. He was asked about the situation and given the chance to throw the former Democratic vice presidential nominee a lifeline:

The president-elect’s designated chief of staff, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, told ABC’s “This Week” that Lieberman’s fate was up to his fellow senators.

“The business of what we have to do when we get sworn in is focusing on what the American people care about,” Emanuel said. “Priority one is the economy.”

That’s the political equivalent of getting the thumbs-up—NOT down—in the gladiator arena.

Ah, the sweet sound of the new tone of bipartisanship riding in to the White House on Obama’s wave of change.

See also:

There’s been a lot made over the past year about the influence of celebrities on political campaigns.

From Oprah’s over-the-top support of Barack Obama to Hank Williams Jr. rewriting “Family Tradition” for the GOP ticket, from Chuck Norris supporting John McCain to Matt Damon’s downright brutal remarks about Sarah Palin, celebs have had a lot to say about the presidential race.

Not everyone thinks it’s a good thing; in fact, they say, it’s gotten downright annoying.

One of Barack Obama’s biggest supporters is Red Hot Chili Peppers’ frontman, the very curiously named will.i.am.

SIDEBAR: Am I the only one whom that reminds of the whole symbol thing with Prince? Just wondering. END SIDEBAR

Anyway, will.i.am appeared on CNN’s “Larry King Live” last night to discuss what influenced him to write the “Yes We Can” song that became a web phenomenon.

Listen to him discuss it below.

One final note: I’m not sure whether will.i.am just came from the recording studio or if he was expecting an impromptu recording session to break out on “LKL,” but as a rule, it’s a lot easier to take someone seriously when he doesn’t treat his headphones as a fashion accessory.

Just wanted to call to your attention that we have a brand-new poll below. I want to know: How do you feel about the election of Barack Obama?

Please take a minute to check it out and have your say. 

The ombudsman for the Washington Post has confirmed what everyone who hasn’t been living under a rock for the past year already knew: The Post was in the tank for Barack Obama.

Deborah Howell writes that the Post provided much more friendly coverage of Obama than of GOP nominee John McCain; in addition, she writes, the Post did it at the expense of real issue coverage.

Among her findings, the Post ran more than twice as many positive op-ed pieces about Obama than McCain, Obama appeared on the front page more often than McCain and the Post published more Obama stories in total than stories about McCain.

Most disturbing, though, the Post provided more than twice as many “horse race” stories—or articles about polls—than it provided on issues.

More than twice as many.

This follows national media trends, Howell writes:

Our survey results are comparable to figures for the national news media from a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. It found that from June 9, when Clinton dropped out of the race, until Nov. 2, 66 percent of the campaign stories were about Obama compared with 53 percent for McCain; some stories featured both. The project also calculated that in that time, 57 percent of the stories were about the horse race and 13 percent were about issues.

For his part, Post assistant managing editor for politics Bill Hamilton said, “There are a lot of things I wish we’d been able to do in covering this campaign, but we had to make choices about what we felt we were uniquely able to provide our audiences both in Washington and on the Web. I don’t at all discount the importance of issues, but we had a larger purpose, to convey and explain a campaign that our own David Broder described as the most exciting he has ever covered, a narrative that unfolded until the very end. I think our staff rose to the occasion.”

Ahem.

Is Hamilton really saying that his reporting staff is more “uniquely able” to produce “narrative” stories than investigative journalism, like reporting on issues? It sure looks that way.

In any event, here we have an editor at a major national newspaper in the nation’s capital explaining that his newspaper had “a larger purpose” than reporting on the issues of the presidential campaign—to “convey and explain” the campaign, apparently, through polls.

The devolution of journalism is complete.

The question now is, will the Post—and the rest of the traditional media—recognize the error of their ways in time to provide tough and fair coverage of Obama’s administration?

Given Hamilton’s unapologetic explanation for why his newspaper failed to do its job during the campaign, I don’t hold out much hope.

Read the rest of Howell’s column here.