I understand why the Obama campaign wants "to help Hillary Clinton discharge her debts and pay back the $11.43 million she has loaned her organization," but, for reasons of fairness and precedent, it doesn't really seem like they should. Clinton, after all, made an informed decision: Given low potential odds of winning the nomination, she thought it worthwhile to take out loans of approximately $11 million in order to maximize her chance for victory. It emphasized her intense commitment to her campaign, given that $11 million was a substantial sum of money to potentially lose. If it's repaid as some sort of concession prize, that suggests there was no real financial risk at all, and future trailing candidates should feel free to borrow epic sums that draw out bruising campaigns, secure in the knowledge that they can leverage their eventual withdrawal to force the winning campaign to cover their debt. It's the Bear Stearns theory of campaign financing, and it doesn't seem like something that should be encouraged. Further, on a level of basic equity, millions of people in this country take out unwise loans on unlikely schemes and no one covers their debt. Given that that's exactly the sort of economic unfairness Clinton has spent the last few months condemning, it seems peculiar for her to now avail herself of those opportunities. If Clinton said she would not drop out unless Obama swore to send a health care bill to Congress within his first 100 days, I'd have immense respect for that. But a repayment of debt she knowingly entered into? That's not how this is supposed to work.
