Reid v. Kerry

From WP:

Reid and Kerry crossed swords two weeks ago at a closed-door meeting of the Senate Democratic Steering and Coordination Committee with a group of labor leaders, and while accounts vary, there's little doubt that things got tense between the new Senate Democratic leader and the party's 2004 presidential ominee.

Kerry was unhappy with the posture of the Democrats and told Reid that they needed to be far more aggressive in fighting President Bush, needed to set up what amounted to a perpetual campaign and needed a plan to prevent Bush from seizing the middle ground in the Social Security fight.

Reid responded that he had set up a campaign-style war room and taken other steps to put the Democrats in fighting mode and made it clear he wasn't going to change course just because Kerry thought something different was needed.

The most extensive account of the exchange noted that Reid had questioned how Kerry had run his presidential campaign in Nevada last year -- he lost the state -- but two other sources say that did not occur.

But several of those in the room described it as an awkward and tough exchange that left no one in doubt as to who was in charge of Senate Democrats. "Reid kind of shot him down," said one person privy to the exchange, adding, "You would never have seen [former Senate Democratic Leader] Tom Daschle do that."

I was going to comment on this, but I think Kos pretty much summed up what I would have said.

One of the toughest jobs a Senate party leader has must be managing the various egos of presidential aspirants. In the current Senate, Reid has to contend (at minimum) with Clinton, Feingold, Bayh, Biden and Kerry. Good for him for slapping down Kerry.

Also, if Reid can be this stalwart with members of his own party, then look foward to more conflicts with the republicans.

I think right about now I'd like to make a correction to what I said about Reid calling Greenspan a "hack." Attacks like that one, which are warranted but not very, let's say, civil can only work if the Democrats stand by their words instead of apologizing during the next news cycle which makes them look weak and spineless. If thay're able to do that, instead of giving in, then the outrage seems legitimate and so their commitment to the issue at hand. Reid has yet to apologize for his despcription of Greenspan and for that I applaud him, even though I still think he could have been critical in a slightly less hostile fashion.