I actually missed the debate, so didn't really catch this point since pretty much all the post-debate analysis I saw talked about how unbelievably bad it was, or how Obama seemed a bit off his game. But, I'm watching Olbermann now (yeah, the late re-run) and he's speaking to Rachel Maddow about Clinton proposing that there would be a "massive retaliation" against Iran if they attacked Israel, and that we should implement an "umbrella" policy for countries in the middle east with the rest of the world. They seem flabbergasted that this isn't the story of the debate, since, it appears to be even further to the right on middle-east policy than even John McCain.
Here's a link to the segment in question:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...
So, should this be made into a bigger issue? On the one hand, I understand that Israel is our ally, and obviously we would want to come to the aid of an ally if they were attacked. But was Clinton actually proposing something much bigger and more dangerous?
I also wonder whether, even if this were pursued a bit further, it would have any effect on the PA primary at all. I also think there's a bit of "pandering" in here, both from Clinton and Obama (since he didn't really bring it up at the debate), in not wanting to look like they were deserting Israel and would also be a strong supporter of Israel.
What does everyone think about this?