Obama owes nothing to Clinton

By Marsha Mercer

The buzz on the Web and cable is that Clinton could get a sweetener if she agrees to quit the race and play nice with Obama. He would repay the $11.5 million Clinton loaned her campaign and perhaps millions more in other campaign expenses.

WASHINGTON — What will it take to get Hillary Rodham Clinton to quit?

Oh, that’s right, “quit” isn’t in the Clintons’ vocabulary, and she insists she’s staying on the campaign trail “until there’s a nominee.” Hello? Apparently, presidential campaigns on Planet Hillary work differently than those here on Earth.

Most presidential candidates quit when the money runs out. Clinton continues to raise money — just not enough to keep up with Barack Obama. But then there’s that commodious handbag of hers.

So we could face another month of Clinton running negative ads, yammering that the “elitist” can’t win working-class whites and therefore is doomed in November and generally souring the Democrats’ milk. How to make her stop?

The buzz on the Web and cable is that Clinton could get a sweetener if she agrees to quit the race and play nice with Obama. He would repay the $11.5 million Clinton loaned her campaign and perhaps millions more in other campaign expenses.

When I first heard this idea, I assumed it was more Republican mischief making, like Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos.” The radio talk show host urged Republicans to vote for Clinton in the primaries to “bloody up Obama politically” and drag out the Democratic contest.

But then I thought it was Republican mischief making when I first heard that Bill and Hillary Clinton had turned the Lincoln Bedroom in the White House into a bed and breakfast.

Instead, it appears that Democrats are so afraid of what the Clintons might do in the next few months that Obama may have to buy their support. Oy vey.

The golden handshake

Democrats do have a precedent for a political golden handshake. Dan Conley, former press secrettary to L. Douglas Wilder during the 1994 Senate race in Virginia, described such a deal in the online journal salon.com.

In that case, Wilder, a Democrat running as an independent, negotiated a unity deal with his rival, Sen. Chuck Robb, a Democrat. Wilder dropped out a few weeks before Election Day and endorsed Robb, who was able to win re-election with a strong turnout by black voters, Conley wrote. Among the high-powered Democrats involved in the negotiations was then-President Bill Clinton.

As part of the deal, Wilder, who had contributed to his campaign, got all his own money back. Wilder currently is mayor of Richmond.

But 2008 is not 1994. The last thing Democrats want today is to be seen as the party of the back-room deal.

Obama has energized millions of idealists who are new to politics and have contributed small amounts to their first political candidate ever because they believe he’ll change the way Washington works. It would send the wrong message if their hero now, even in the name of party unity, were to use campaign funds to replenish the hefty bank account of the Clintons, who have reported income of $109 million since Bill Clinton left office.

Besides, why should Obama have to pay the bills of the campaign that beat him up all year and then lost? Contributors who wanted to pay for attack ads against Obama would have given the money to Clinton in the first place.

Playing by the rules

Plus, are the Clintons really such political royalty that they play by different rules than govern other wealthy politicians?

One of the things about America is that rich people can spend their money however they want. They can buy an island, go up in space, run for president. It’s their choice. But nobody guarantees them a return on their investment, if they run for president. Hillary Clinton chose to write those checks.

Perhaps after the Wilder-Robb deal in 1994, the Clintons will insist on getting something for their money. Conley is among commentators who have suggested other sweeteners Clinton might demand in return for bowing out gracefully, including a “right of first refusal” on Obama’s pick as vice president.

If Obama goes along with that, Clinton may soon be thinking she won. And Obama and the Democrats will be the losers.

X Marsha Mercer is Washington bureau chief of Media General News Service. Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service.