Wishful thinking for a knock-down drag-out hair-pulling Harman vs. Pelosi catfight.

It would give Harman street creds and belittle Pelosi.

Atrios links to Greenwald:
"There is nothing "credible" about Harman. Yes, she is smart and knowledgeable, but she has been wrong about everything that matters, particularly in the intelligence area. But she was wrong in exactly the same way that the Beltway geniuses and The New Republic and David Broder and Fred Hiatt were wrong. For that reason, they don't want her to be repudiated and rejected because that would constitute a repudiation and rejection of them. So they build up and glorify the "credible," responsible Harman because she represents them, and they hate Pelosi in advance for rejecting Harman for being wrong about everything because they feel rejected by that choice."

[snip]

"In light of [Harman's] history, why would anyone think that Nancy Pelosi should choose Jane Harman to be the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, a key position for exercising desperately-needed oversight over the administration's last two years of intelligence mischief and, as importantly, for investigating and exposing the administration's past misconduct? She instinctively supports, or at least acquieses to, the administration's excesses, and would be among the worst choices Pelosi could make."

To Rich Lowry, Harman is a centrist:
" Harman is a moderate on national security, noted for her expertise. She has a reputation for bipartisan comity and has worked to pull Democrats to the center on defense and intelligence issues. "

Greenwald again:
"Given her position as ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, Harman was repeatedly used by the administration -- with her consent -- as a potent instrument to shield itself from scrutiny, by creating the "Responsible Democrat" (Harman, Lieberman) v. "Irresponsible Democrat" dichotomy and then arguing that they enjoyed bipartisan support from the Good, Sensible Democrats like Harman. That's why, just like Joe Lieberman, Harman's most vociferous defenders are the most extreme Bush followers and neoconservatives. It is their agenda whom she promotes (which is why they defend her)."

CorrenteWire reminds us:
" Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, remained silent for over a year after being briefed on the Bush administration’s violation of federal wiretapping law (FISA) and recently told “Meet the Press” that she deplores the New York Times for informing the American people that the Bush Administration ignored the law."

Know who your politicians are before you bet on them.