I'm beginning to hear apologists say that at worst Obama's actions are just misdemeanors. I don't think this gets Obama off the hook. The Constitution lists "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors" as the basis for impeachment. It seems to me that whole issue of felony/misdemeanor distinction does not apply to bribery but to another class of misdeeds. My reading of the text suggests that bribery on any criminal level can lead to impeachment.
In “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the word “high” doesn’t mean severe. In this sense, “high” refers to crimes against the state. It is not to be taken literally, especially in a modern sense. It is a term from English common law going way back to the 14th Century that the founders used to describe serious breaches of the public trust or duty of office, usually for the benefit of the few to the injury of the state.
You or I, the little people, cannot be charged with this. It is only for those holding positions of power in government, and has historically only been used so. However, Obama is in a high position of power and trust, so anything that he does to violate the public trust or harm the state (bribery in elections), especially to the benefit of the few in power (Specter and the WH), can be considered to be among “high crimes and misdemeanors.” This is true even if it is technically only a minor crime on the books and not legally defined as bribery.