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.

For the "moderate" bailout crowd, what happens in the future when another member of the superwealthy class (like the Clintons) decides to loan himself millions to run a campaign, and then asks the winning candidate or the Party to pay him back? I think the precedent should be set now that this kind of payback may have been fine in the past, when the sums were smaller, and the donors richer, but that we're in a different political world now, given the netroots.

As for the small vendors, I'm sympathetic, but, again, the appropriate remedy is a lawsuit. I'm always sympathetic when people get ripped off, but I don't pay their debts - I suggest they get an attorney (and, next time, have better business sense.) Business is business, folks - people get ripped off all the time, and the smart ones learn and make it to the next round. And, if those small vendors hadn't been taking Hillary's IOUs, we'd have been through this silly post-Super Tuesday campaign a long time back. Cash up front is a fine policy; anything else is always a gamble (or, a matter for attorneys.)

Does anyone else have to search with their pointer for the "send comment" button at the bottom of the comment box? In my case, nothing appears, and I have to watch the (pointer) arrow as I move it around until it turns into the little finger indicating a(n invisible) button.

Does anyone have a way to contact the Obama campaign? The campaign ought to know - if for some reason folks there don't get it - just how badly it will play for him to pay off her debts with netroots money.

I've written to them to let them know, but they probably get a million emails a day.

I was actually in favor of helping to pay off some of her debts, but then I remembered that around half of her supporters (at least in Indiana) said they wouldn't vote for Obama. So assuming he's the nominee, what's the point in sending money to her? Half her supporters either aren't going to vote, or will vote for McCain. In effect, bailing her out would just be spending against the Democratic party in the general election.

I don't know how many will actually follow through on their threats, but from the intensity of many of her supporters, especially in the last several weeks, I wouldn't be surprised if a significant number do follow through on their threats. Regardless of the 'fairness' of how Obama spends money that's been given to him, spending the money on Hillary seems like a bad strategic move.

Senator Obama,

Please use my modest contributions for whatever you think works best for our campaign.

I have no desire to punish Hillary. I see no Obama supporter who won't vote for you should any such plan be implemented. I see many, however, who would rather carry on emotionally self-serving tirades instead of thinking about what's good for the country.

We can raise it a day.

Thanks. A patriotic American

donner, may your path always be lined with California poppies, you do get it and my fellow plants salute you.

BionicSoy, you no longer qualify as a plant, you seem to have been engineered by the likes of Monsanto, as your name suggests.

ARGH!

WENCH HILLARY KNOWS HOW TO PLUNDER THE STATE COFFERS!

SHE HAS A RATHER LARGE BOOTY!

I'VE SEEN HER TREASURE CHEST!

GRAB! TAKE! SHAKE! BAKE!

PLUNDER ASUNDER! AND SWASH YE BUCKLE!

SHE'S BEEN TAKING FROM THE DARK CONTINENT FOR YEARS! WHAT'S HERS IS HERS. WHAT'S YOURS IS HERS!

SHE'LL BRING BACK THE RAIDER 1990S!

ACQUIRE! MERGE! MARAUD! DILUTE! DILUTE!

ARGH!

The idea of Obama creating a separate fund to which anyone - his or her supporters - can contribute if they want to help pay off the debt and end this thing is a GREAT one, for many aspects.

It would be even better if that cooperative repayment could be limited to debt *other* than that owed to the Clintons themselves and to Mark Penn. They can create their own fund for that if they want to....

I think this will have an effect on Obama's contributions. I was going to donate again until I heard this, I dont want to give that shrew anything. She needs to hang her head and go home, broke.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm Loan vs Giving, why didn't she just give this money to her campaign????? Where is the LOVE!!! GIVE the money Hillary. You can do it! YES YOU CAN!!!

Damn straight.

Time to let go of the anger. It's not helping your candidate.

Let's leave the legalities aside for a moment. Here are some points that deserve consideration:

a) When you donate to a campaign, you are expecting that money to go to help the campaign win. That doesn't mean using the money for anything else. People have a right to expect that -- particularly since donating to politics isn't even tax deductible.

b) Helping Hillary would be a bad move. Part of the reason why Obama had to keep raising money is that Hillary wouldn't let her finances dictate her campaign. Why bail her out? She's already cost Obama donors money by extending her campaign on shaky finances.

c) To anyone who thinks that Obama should help out Hillary, you are welcome to donate $2.3K to Hillary's campaign. I hear it would help her.

d) As the Grad Student says, we have contract law in this country. I am sure there are lawyers who would help in a class-action suit on behalf of those people ripped off by delinquent payments from the Clinton Campaign.

e) As I said 4-5 weeks ago, I do not feel sorry for any vendors who did business with Hillary a week or two after the news of her delinquency hit the press. Do you loan money to deadbeats? Of course, not. Take personal responsibility. This does not apply to vendors who acted in good faith prior to the announcement. I hope they sue her to the fullest extent of the law.

f) Hillary's campaign finance strategy shows what's exactly wrong with the country today. People get into trouble -- not because of earthquake, flood or fire... but because they make very risky decisions. No bailouts! It hurts the rest of society that is expected to subsidize your reckless ways. This applies to institutions (banks) and to individuals (Hillary).

g) Shame on Hillary. She can take her personal money (Romney did it), and pay off her debts. That would be a measure of character. That has nothing to do with politics. It's called taking personal responsibility. That would really send a message to those "hard working people" she touts as the people she will "fight for."

h) I don't want to see one iota of effort expended by Obama or his campaign on this bailout. There is a job to be done: get to the White House in 2008. Anyone who demands Obama give Hillary money to secure his or her vote is literally selling their vote. Or, in the parlance of this year: they would be pimping themselves out.

We also need to keep in mind that many of the outstanding debts are to small businesses scattered across the country. It would be much better to pay off those businesses than have them mad at the Party as a whole.

I would hate for my money to go to repay loans made by Clinton to her own campaign, but I would not object to taking care of the small businesses that worked for her not out of political leanings but as a matter of business. (I run a catering company & would be horrified to find out that a candidate was going to leave me holding the bag for their event.)

Perhaps he should offer to pay for all outstanding invoices dated before the Indiana primary. Exclude any invoices owed to Mark Penn's company (which is the bulk of the bill) and refuse to repay her own loans. You could also skip any invoices from this point out...after all, if the business hasn't figured out that she is currently a risk, they deserve to lose thier money.

Would that be a compromise everyone could live with?

Oh, Obama,
I did not contribute to pay extortion money to the Clintons and I think that is true of most of the 1.5 million contributors.

Come on folks, be nice. Let's at least pay for that wonderful gun flyer.

Hillary and her campaign have run a financially irresponsible campaign. A lot of this money has been used to attack Obama. Obama's contributors have dug deep for Obama, not to bail out Clinton. Obama will need every dime in the general election to combat the GOP and all the 527s. We did not contribute to Hillary, we gave to Obama. It is would be betrayal to bail out the Clinton campaign. I surely hope this is media hype. The Clintons are very well connected. Let them raise the money. Hopefully, they will pay the small vendors before big media and the campaign fat cats like Mark Penn, Lanny Davis and Harold Ickes.

There's lots of precedent for covering campaign debts when opponents drop out, and people understand the importance of that for Party unity. In the case of Clinton, however, objections stem from several factors:

(a) the staggering size of the debt, for a campaign that spends > $1M/day and takes in only a fraction of that in contributions, for a campaign has been extended long past any realistic hope of obtaining the nomination;

(b) that the money has been spent (and the debt incurred) with the express purpose of weakening Obama as a candidate;

(c) that the divisive and race-baiting tactics employed to weaken Obama are damaging to the present and future interests of the Democratic Party;

(d) that exorbitant salaries were paid to the likes of Mark Penn, with union-busting ties in the US and ties to a Colombian regime that kills union activists in the street; and

(e) while Obama's campaign has been frugal and well-managed, Clinton's has spent lavishly for red-carpet accommodations for an overpaid wasteful staff.

To add injury to insult, Obama donors are largely the unwealthy. It would be indefensible to take so many of our contributions to reimburse the millionaire Clintons for money loaned to keep an otherwise unsupportably divisive campaign afloat. Clinton can afford it, I can't.

The only reason I can see for extending the Clinton campaign has been to weaken Obama's chances in November and weaken the influence of the Obama coalition against old-line Party hacks who have been bought up heart and soul by special interests.

I trust that Obama will not use my contributions to pay for Clinton's regressive campaign. DancingBear suggested on another thread that Clinton present an itemized bill for debts as a prelude to any discussion about which debts might warrant payment by the Democratic Party or the Obama campaign. Public scrutiny of her debts would be an eye-opener for the blue-collar voters she has been courting, who do not realize that lobbyists and friends have been building personal fortunes from her campaign coffers.

I guess you just don't want to win this election. Whatever you want to say about Hillary Clinton whether it's maligning her personally, saying her campaign is ugly and regressive, calling her husband an unabashed racist, saying she's calculating and poll-driven, the fact of the matter is that Obama is not going to be able to win the general election without her supporters.

Paul Begala was right and not being divise when he said we had to expand our coaltion to include working class white voters and Reagan Democrats. We're not going to win this election on the strength of liberal college kids and the African-American vote alone. That's not being divisive, that's telling the truth. The men and women who voted for her matter to the Democratic Party.

There has to be party unity and the only way that happens is if Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama negotiate a dignified end to this primary season. If the netroots wants to turn this into another cause celebre, then go right ahead, but it's only going to make it that much harder to unify the party.

i just emailed his campaign asking him not to pay her debts.

we'll see what happens.

Some have noted here and Articleman notes on another thread:

it's impossible! Obama's campaign is not a PAC, and cannot by law do what is suggested -- it would have to undertake a separate fundraising effort for people who wanted to retire Hillary's debt.]

Does anyone have a link or reference for what can legally be done with campaign funds re: transferring funds from one campaign to another? Or transferring funds from individual campaigns to the DNC?

I generally support making sure the vendors get paid. I do take issue with paying the consultants, and I have to wonder if this quaint custom of the victorious candidate paying the loser's debts in the name of party unity has more to do with keeping the party's consultants happy and well-fed than it does with making peace with your former opponent.

There is no guarantee that his paying her debts would be a positive influence on her supporters. See my response above to Dorn76 at 5:42 pm.

Personally, I think Edsall's an idiot, and I doubt he spoke to anyone at the Obama campaign before he posted this nonsense. If it were to happen, however, I would be seriously PISSED. I didn't donate money to Obama's campaign to have it go to retiring the debt of a couple of multi-millionaires. It would be like getting screwed twice: once when I was forced to donate the money to help Obama beat them, and a second time as a slap in the face for giving a shit.

ABC News This Week host George Stephanopoulos said that sources tell him that Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign debt could be as high as $20 million -- more than double earlier reports.

I've given $150.00, $25.00 @ a time as I could afford it to answer vicious attacks from the Clinton machine. Now that money might get used to pay FOR those vicious attacks??? I thought we were out to change Washington...

Ditto ditto ditto all that.

But I must say...
I like being spry in my old age.

I was there way way way first:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/is_hillary_running_out_of_ways.php#comment-2791651

How much is Hillary willing to lose of her own personal fortune. Read the following article. It explains why she can only get her loans to her campaign up to the convention date. After that she her campaign can only recover $250K from her campaign funds.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/05/08/why-clinton-stands-to-lose-millions.html

Why Clinton Stands to Lose Millions
The struggling candidate must act quickly if she wants her campaign debts repaid
By Bret Schulte
Posted May 8, 2008

With rounds to fight running out, the self-described Rocky Balboa of politics will soon be forced to assess the damage sustained by the most expensive primary bout in history. Sen. Hillary Clinton doled out $6.4 million of her own money to her campaign since April, her campaign told reporters this week. That brings her total cash outlay to more than $11 million since January. And she's not ruling out spending more as she plans to compete in the six remaining contests. If she plans to knock out heavyweight fundraising champ, Sen. Barack Obama, she may have no other choice.
Related News

Experts disagree on whether or not Clinton will actually stick in the fight until the Democratic National Convention in August. But the date looms large for another reason—at least, if she hopes to recoup any of the millions she has sunk into the campaign. Thanks to a little-known provision in 2002's McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform bill, a campaign must repay the loan to a candidate before Election Day. In this case, that's the nominating convention. After the election has passed, a bankrupt campaign is limited to gathering just $250,000 from contributors, which means that modest sum is all it can give back to a candidate. In short, Clinton stands to lose $11,150,000. "If she wants to be repaid, she'd have to move on that between now and the national convention," says former Federal Election Commission chairman Michael Toner. "Otherwise, it just becomes another contribution."

I have donated as much as I can each month for the last several months and I will continue to do so. Obama's campaign has been brilliant and put every penny to the best of use. When I donate I don't earmark it, nor do I reserve the right to take it back. Since paying off some of the losers debt is somewhat customary, and considering that she has such huge support, almost half the party, it may make sense. She of course would need to get out quickly and graciously support his candidacy. I trust his campagin will again make the right choice here. I'll support their decision.

Those vendors are being punished by a couple who made $120 million in the last seven years and are too cheap to pay their own bills.

where is gotalife when i need him...I told you all its all in the accounting!

May I humbly suggest. Senator Daniel Inouye (Medal of honor winner), and not likeley to run for re-election ever as the nominee for VP!

Inouye unlike most of us understands what a concentration camp is.
While he was fighting in Europe, his friends and family were in Detention Camps in the US.
Yes, he and his cohorts fought for the Flag...But never flagged in their devotion to the

ideal of being an American...They became the most decorated unit in the history of the

United States ARmy (The 442nd and 100th Battilion...better known as the One puka puka)...
Do you want a foil for McCain?
Dan is the man!

I think Senator Inouye is an interesting suggestion for VP

I also admire Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Why wouldn't he make a good choise?