I was going to post almost the same thing. As someone who has sent Obama a few hundred over the past months, with money being very tight in my household and getting worse every day, I would be very upset if he did this. No deals.

I'm ok with paying back all her debts except the ones that she loaned herself (look, if she was dumb enough to put that money in after she knew she would lose, why should she get repaid?) I'm also a little sick to my stomach about paying Mark Penn his $5m, but unfortunately he can't forgive that debt without making an illegal campaign contribution.

But all the poster makers, donut shops, and other people who put business faith in HRC and are getting stiffed, I have no problem with Obama paying those debts.

The problem may be the enthusiasm with which she supports him. While it would not be good for her career to submarine him, she can make it easier or harder. So on the other hand, if paying her off is worth $15m in voter appreciation (in other words, if the 15m spent on other campaign activities was equivalent to what we could buy from Clinton enthusiastic support) then the argument could be made, but frankly I highly doubt that...

There's an interesting article by Jacob Leibenluft at slate.com ("Can a Campaign Go Bankrupt?" -- I don't know how to get links to work). The article states that campaigns are required to pay back debt, but it's different if the candidate ponied up the money:

"[Election] Debt retirement gets a little more complicated when candidates lend their own money to their campaign. After an election is over, any campaign contributions that go toward repaying the candidate's own loans serve, in practice, as money directly into a politician's pocket. As a result, campaign law (PDF) now limits to $250,000 the amount a campaign committee can repay the candidate after the election. In the case of the Democratic primary, the election will end when a nominee is selected in Denver. So unless Clinton is able to raise enough money to pay herself back by then, she'll have to write off millions of dollars she lent to her campaign."

The "Obama paying off Clinton's debt" option that several pundits are pushing is probably meant as enticement for her to drop out of the race. By some estimates, she's racked up close to 25 Million in debt (10-15 in unpaid bills plus 11.4 million in loans from herself) and I'm sure the idea of having to raise funds to pay that back after pulling out of the race is daunting. As someone who contributed (albeit tiny amounts) to the Obama campaign, I think it's worth it to end this thing sooner rather than later.

While we all may bemoan the thought of Obama paying down Hillary's debt it has been done before. This is not a new idea in political campaigns. However, as we all know Obama's campaign has broken all the old historical molds as to the way to run and fund a campaign. So here's a thought - the campaign can send out an email to all it's contributors asking for a vote on whether to pay her debt or not. Another approach would be to start a separate fund that both Hillary supporters and Obama supporters can donate to just to pay off her debt. This may accomplish two things Obama supporters who have no problem with it can do it and it starts to get Clinton supports involved with Obama Campaign in a positive way.

Just a thought.

People assume OBama needs Hillary out now.

Wrong!

Her remaining in the race now is probaby good for Obama:

- continues press coverage of him, leaving McCain on the sidelines for a little longer
- he'll need to campaign in these places, so running ads now is good for the general
- with no fear of losing, he can take the high road and be even more gracious
- letting Hillary hang on will assuage her hardcore supporters as they learn to accept reality

There is no reason for Obama to clean up the mess the Clintons have created. His nomination is not dependent on when Hillary gets out. Her political future is riding on that timing. Bill and Hillary have proven throughout this process they care about nothing more than power, not the country and surely not the party.

She continues to insinuate she is the more electable candidate even after North Carolina and Indiana. Our concern shouldn't be whether Obama is going to pay off the Clinton coronation debt, our concern should be who is contributing to the Clintons joint assets allowing them to continue to try and buy this nomination.

This is not Obama's responsibility. Should the DNC take some role? Maybe - in paying off vendors - Hillary's personal loans are her problem.

I am a graduate student who gave the full 2300 for the primary, which I really couldn't afford and which was about 10% of my pre-tax income. (I don't have kids, so I can justify this contribution and just eat more beans and rice.) I would feel *utterly* betrayed by a pay-off to the Clintons. In the past, when big donors owned the party and called the shots, maybe they didn't mind shifting a million this way or that way to keep everyone happy and keep the game rolling. But this campaign is different - or at least, has been different. If the money I contributed goes to the Clintons (in any way, shape, or form) I'll never give another penny to a candidate - since it could end up in his or her rival's pocket. What's the point in that?

As for all the small vendors, I hate to say it, but they need to sue the Clinton campaign for back payment. We have contract law in this country and that's the right remedy. I feel bad for them - but at the same time, these are small business owners who knew (from January) that the Clintons were not paying their bills. I remember articles from February warning vendors to take "cash up front" when dealing with Hillary's campaign. We have to set a precedent here: cash up front or lawsuits to collect later, but the party can't be hit up for one candidate's vainglory. Anyway, the Clintons can afford to pay back the small vendors they ripped off but I can't afford to pay them back - and it wasn't me who ordered all those sandwiches!

As for the argument that we need to do this for party unity, party unity is a two-way street, and it's high time the Clintons showed a little, by paying their own bills and withdrawing with grace from a race that they've lost. They can afford it: their post-presidency has been the most appallingly lucrative we've ever seen. Shouldn't all the "hard-working" Clinton supporters pressure their candidate to do the right thing by American small business? How 'elitist' is it of HRC to expect me to pay back her debts? Talk about entitlement.

I donated to help Obama win this, and my donations were made with no strings attached. If his campaign thinks this is the best use of their money, who the hell am I to argue? I trust Obama and his advisors, thats why I support him in the first place.

First, let me say I respect and understand the "Anti-bail-out" crowd. My comments reflect a different view, and should not be considered attacks at the OB (original blogger) or anyone else.

If Obama can secure the nomination faster-
If Hillary will start working for his election faster-
If the party will unify, faster-

I am all in favor of it.

To me, it shows that Obama respects and admires Hillary enough that he is going to make sure that their is no pain from her departure, and let her focus on raising money for Obama, raising awareness for Obama, and giving McCain the same hard fight she gave Obama.

To me, Hillary Clinton is worth $20 million dollars, and to that end, on the day she announces her withdrawl from the race, I will make a contribution to her campaign to help her retire that debt. (and, no, I don't have $20 million, even if that was legal) Yes, I am angry at her for some of her tactics and mistakes. I am going to be angry at her for a while.

However, I do still admire her, and know that, but for the strength and promise of a better candidate, my candidate, she would have been the nominee.

Hillary Clinton has a lot of important work left to do. She needs to take a leadership role in the Senate. We need a tough, scrappy fighter as Majority Leader, esp. if we don't get the 60 seats we need to stop Republican fillibusters.

We need a replacement for JP Stevens, Ruth Ginnsburg (sp?) and perhaps a few others on the Supreme Court. Who better than Hillary Clinton to be the "de facto" Chief Justice by leading a new band of 5 moderates and liberals to reverse the Roberts/Scalia era.

The points made by many of the posts above express my first, gut reaction. However, as I thought about it longer....we don't want Hillary wounded and distracted, "Licking her wounds" in some cave. We want her out fighting. Fighting for the causes we support, with our fellow Democrats.

It is no hardship to forgive someone who deserves forgivness, and as many have pointed out, Hillary has not reached "deserving" in the minds of many, so we must take on that hardship to win the larger battle, and ask her, and her supporters to stand by our side.

If charity begins at home, let it begin for all of us now, in the home of a united Democratic Party.