Pelosi says no to both Harman and Hastings.

"The fight over the top spot on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has exposed the kind of factional politics that bedeviled House Democrats before they were swept from control in 1994. Harman, a moderate, strong-on-defense "Blue Dog" Democrat, had angered liberals with her reluctance to challenge the Bush administration's use of intelligence. Hastings, an African American, was strongly backed by the Congressional Black Caucus but was ardently opposed by the Blue Dogs, who said his removal from the bench disqualifies him from such a sensitive post."
[snip]
"In the end, Pelosi's pledge to clean up Congress after two years of scandal made Hastings's appointment impossible, Democrats said.

Likewise, Pelosi was not willing to bend the committee's unique term-limit rules for Harman, who she believes had violated a promise to step aside, according to Democrats. Harman had angered some Democrats with a tough management style that helped drive away longtime Democratic staffers."

Um...Harman has been a DINO in many things. She is not a centrist. Supporters of Bush, his vanity war, and his attack on the Constitution are not exactly welcome in the Democratic Congress. The Democrats were voted into power because they are NOT Republicans.

We need to turn the country hard to the left to keep it on the road, because staying the course by turning to the right or to the center still takes us off the cliff.

Update:
Harman in her own words. Says it all.

Update:
Glenn Greenwald:
"Quite transparently, none of this ever had anything to do with "concern" over who will lead the House Intelligence Committee (which is why one searches in futility for all the in-depth media debates and analysis over the all-powerful Pete Hoekstra), but instead was all driven by the increasingly intense commitment to destroy Nancy Pelosi's ability to lead the House. It was all based on imaginary "facts" and assumptions that were completely unwarranted by the evidence, and fueled by the caricature that Pelosi is both inept and intent on destroying the Democratic Party. The entire Hastings-vs.-Harman contest was an illusory media drama from start to finish."

Update: More on the smearing of Pelosi and her vineyard in Napa:
"An ABC News reporter asked Peter Schweizer “if he had researched those facts before he called Pelosi a hypocrite.” Schweitzer responded, “It’s not my responsibility to go and find out how every single particular circumstance is handled on the Pelosi vineyard.” Why burden yourself with the facts?"

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.