Factcheck.org On the Cleveland Debate

Summary
The Clinton-Obama showdown debate in Cleveland produced several false, twisted or dubious claims, most of which we've heard and debunked before.

Both Obama and Clinton claimed their health care plans would cut costs more than the other's, and that experts back them up on that. But experts we talked to said the plans are too similar to predict which would save more, and two experts said neither plan can save nearly as much as the candidates claim.

Both Obama and Clinton twisted the other's words about support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, again. In fact, the candidates have practically identical positions. They both said during the debate that they would threaten to withdraw from NAFTA unless Mexico and Canada agree to new and tougher terms.

Clinton said Obama once "basically threatened to bomb Pakistan," a distortion of his statement that he'd unilaterally "take out" al Qaeda leadership there if Pakistan wouldn't act. And that's just what the U.S. did earlier this month, according to news reports quoting official sources.

Obama twisted the words of Republican John McCain, saying he has suggested "war" might "go on for another 100 years." McCain expressly said otherwise. He said a 100-year presence would be acceptable in the absence of violence against U.S. troops, and later said "the war will be over soon."

Analysis
Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off once again in a debate, this time at Cleveland State University. It was broadcast live on MSNBC and was the last scheduled meeting between the two Democratic front-runners before the possibly decisive primaries to be held Tuesday, March 4 in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont.

Inflated Health Care Claims
Both candidates made dubious and conflicting claims about what their health care plans would do to reduce the cost of health care, and both claimed that experts back them up:

Obama: And we do more to reduce costs than any other plan that's been out there.

Clinton: I have the most aggressive measures to reduce costs and improve quality. And time and time again, people who have compared our two approaches have concluded that.

Obama: I mean, it is just not accurate to say that Senator Clinton does more to control costs than mine. That is not the case. There are many experts who have concluded that she does not.

Of course, they can't both be right. And in fact, experts we consulted said there is little to choose between the two plans, and that neither is likely to produce the big savings that the candidates claim.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology economics professor Jonathan Gruber told FactCheck.org, "There is absolutely no evidence to suggest which candidate's plan would be better at cutting costs. ... They both have a great set of ideas and I heartily endorse what they proposed. But there's very little evidence to suggest that either would make a major dent in health care costs and certainly no evidence as to one person's plan is better than another's."

John Sheils, senior vice president of the health care research organization The Lewin Group, also says both candidates are being unrealistic about how much their proposed measures will do to reduce costs. "I don't think anyone seriously expects that they would start generating those savings," he told us.