I think people don't understand that. Caving means capitulating to what the other side wants. Harry Reid never wanted the kind of filibuster reform that the Democratic reformers wanted. So all questions aside as to what that means, for better or worse, it's simply wrong to save that Reid "caved." Say that he opposed strong filibuster reform, or whatever, but he got what he wanted.
According to conversations with pro-reform Democratic aides, party leadership sources and outside opponents of the filibuster, Reid’s main goal was ultimately not to weaken the 60-vote threshold that reformers desperately wanted to change. Instead his objective was to eliminate mandatory gaps between votes in order to move legislation and nominees that have cleared a filibuster more quickly — which he achieved. ...
In hindsight, proponents of reform inside and outside the Senate doubt that Reid was ever willing to use the constitutional option to change the filibuster with 51 votes, despite his claims, and believe he used the threat to gain leverage over McConnell.
“I especially got that sense over the weekend when I had a conversation with [Sen. Chuck] Schumer on Sunday and kept asking him about the constitutional option,” the outside source said. “He got emphatic and said, ‘Harry’s reticent to do it.’ He said that twice and poked me in the chest.” ...
A Democratic leadership aide told TPM that “whether you wanted more or not, Reid got virtually everything he has said he wanted.” The aide pointed to examples of the majority leader saying his goal was to make the Senate operate more efficiently.
Reformers in and out of the Senate believe that Reid tapped into their enthusiasm to advance his goal. “Reid said he wants to make it easier to move on bills,” said a pro-reform aide. “This doesn’t do that. He still has to negotiate with McConnell to get on a bill. It’s a negligible difference to how the Senate operates today.”
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/filibuster-reform-tick-tock.php
= new reply since forum marked as read