Obama is fast and loose with the truth too:

www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/theyve_got_you_covered.html

I'm not saying that two wrongs make a right, but Hillary's is more in the spirit of smear (or retaliatory smear if you will), whereas Obama's is an out-right misrepresentation.

I'm not sure why people's refusal to sign up for free or heavily-subsidized health care is a president's problem. You can twist statistics pretty much any way you like to prove any point you like, but I think having to account for forcing people to sign up for free health care so that your plan actually covers 100% of the people is really splitting hairs.

Splitting hairs?

I think the more people enrolled, the lower an individual's health care cost will be since that individual won't also be carrying the added cost of the uninsured.

The outcome of each plan will likely be significantly different. Hill-dog's is a serious, committed step towards universal health care (UHC), whereas Obama's is a wishy-washy step whose figures are likely based on estimates; no one really knows how many people will opt to sign up to his plan, especially if it isn't free.

In this sound-byte world, his claim of UHC coverage is false; he should temper it by saying "the opportunity" to have UHC.

All I'm sayin' is you cannot get much more inside, politically speaking, than the Clinton family. It is funny for her to be calling anybody 'establishment.'