Clinton's health plan is similar enough to Obama's to my mind. Both of them give too much continued participation to the current crooks who control the "health insurance" industry, and who spend so much of their payroll and other expenditures in their efforts to deny medical care to people.

Also, Hilary's history of bungling a previous attempt to improve health coverage makes me a bit doubtful of her. Of course, she should have, and may have, learned from her mistakes back then.

John Edwards had proposed a healthcare plan that allows the status quo approach to continue, but in direct competition with a single-payer federal plan. If the single-payer deal proves to work, as many believe it would, the old-fashioned profit-making care-denying system would eventually fall by the wayside.

At first, Edwards was the only candidate to offer ANY concrete health-coverage plan; the other Dems came up with their "alternatives" only in response to his proposal. Eventually, assuming the Democrat wins, perhaps we can hope for a solution that turns out to be similiar to Edwards', if not identical.

Contrary to what some have been saying, it seems to me that supporters of both Obama and Clinton will vote Democratic in the general election, and do so quite enthusiastically, regardless of which candidate eventually gets the nomination. Virtually everyone who cares for either Democratic contender is going to be very anxious to end eight years of neoconservative misrule, and most will take the very real possibility of a McCain victory seriously enough to come out and participate, voting against the GOP even if the eventual Demoratic candidiate was not their first choice in the primaries.

It's the Republicans who have to worry that their more partisan and ideologically-driven members will sit out the election in protest and/or disinterest.