Reply #2: This issue is not just about Sestak.

[MH1]

Isn't it interesting that the right-wingers (and their allies on certain "liberal" websites, ahem) have been focusing on Sestak rather than the broader question?

As chief of staff and previously as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Mr. Emanuel has not been shy about trying to steer party nominations to those he considers the stronger candidates. The White House under Mr. Emanuel has also leaned on Gov. David Paterson of New York to drop out of this year’s gubernatorial race, which he eventually did under a cloud of scandal. And Mr. Emanuel’s deputy, Jim Messina, suggested the possibility of an administration job to Andrew Romanoff if he would drop his challenge to Sen. Michael Bennet in a Colorado primary, the Denver Post has reported, citing unnamed sources.

Whether that constitutes ordinary political horse trading or crosses a legal line has been debated in Washington for months. Democrats and some Republicans have said it is hardly unusual for presidents to offer political appointments to clear the way for allies. But Republicans have suggested such actions may constitute a crime.

Representative Darrell Issa, Republican of California, and all seven Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee have separately requested the Justice Department to appoint a special prosecutor.

However before we rush to support the right wingers in taking out Rahm, we should further note:

The office of Robert F. Bauer, the White House counsel ... also found other examples of presidents offering positions to political allies to achieve political aims.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/white-house-used-bill-clinton-to-ask-sestak-to-drop-out-of-race/?hp

It only becomes a 'crime' when it happens in a Democratic administration and the right wingers don't have anything better to chase after? But do they REALLY want to go down this road? Do they REALLY want to set a precedent that all such horse-trading is illegal?