This is the sticking point, isn't it. If she had run a more honorable campaign, I doubt that the idea of Obama helping settle a reasonable debt would be an issue.

Yes, you're right. 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, 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, 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, and

(d) that exhorbitant 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.

To add injury to insult, Obama donors are largely the unwealthy. It would be indefensible to take so many of their contributions to reimburse the millionaire Clintons for money loaned to keep an otherwise unsupportably divisive campaign afloat.

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.