Is There a Battle Between Obama and Reid?

There are reports this morning that the recent veto threat by president Obama which killed the bipartisan tax deal that was close to fruition was actually a means for Obama to embarrass senator Harry Reid.  Reid, as the leader of Senate Democrats, was the principal negotiator for the Democrats in the tax deal.  After the midterm voters crushed the Democrats, Reid's chief of staff said publicly that the main reason for the defeat was president Obama.  Supposedly, the veto threat for the tax deal was retribution for that statement by Reid's chief of staff.  The new reports also carry statements from the White House and from Reid's office which say that the idea that this was retribution by Obama is false.  That is no surprise.  It is one thing for Obama to embarrass Reid; it is an entirely different thing for either of them to admit it. 

If this was a vindictive move by Obama to get Reid, it does explain one thing that had been puzzling me.  Earlier this week, Republicans were talking about passing a funding measure for the government that authorizes expenditures until the end of the fiscal year but which also limits the spending authorization of Homeland Security until mid March only.  When asked about this plan, Reid just said he would take what he could get.  There was no attack on the GOP, no statements about how they want to shut down the government.  In short, Reid put Obama in the position where he would need to veto a spending bill that funded the government for months with no conditions if Obama did not want to be caught in March with just Homeland Security on the front burner.  While Reid's reaction seemed reasonable, it also seemed very unlike Harry Reid who has spent the last six years protecting Obama from any sort of trouble in Congress.  The statement may very well have been Reid's response to an attack by Obama.