Small Democratic donors shouldn't pay off the debt of the multi-millionaires

Josh Marshall offers his opinion, with which I strongly agree:

Helping to retire an opponent's campaign is not unprecedented and can sometimes be justified in the interests of party unity. (Remember, this isn't just money in the abstract. A lot of it is payment to people who provided services or goods of various sorts to the campaign and need to be paid or paid back.) But using more than $10 million raised in large part by small individual donations to pay back the Clintons who appear to be worth many tens of millions of dollars simply seems wrong.

This isn't meant to sound ungracious. I don't begrudge the Clintons their very substantial wealth. And even for really, really rich people, $11 million isn't nothing. But that is simply too much money raised from small givers to give to people who loaned it with full knowledge of the odds and have more than enough money to really know what to do with.

Frankly, I'm surprised that it's even being suggested. It would be a mistake for the Clintons to ask (and just because people are chattering about it -- don't assume they have or will), a mistake for Obama to offer and one that would risk a severe backlash.

That's not what people gave their money for.

Yep. This debt discussion needs to be shut down. The Clintons decided to use a lot of their own money to keep this campaign going. Not only would it be very hard to convince Democratic donors to give money to pay them -- and Mark Penn, it's just wrong. Let Terry McAuliffe worry about the Clinton's debt. They're all millionaires. It's hard to feel sorry for them.