Amidst the talk last night of driver's licenses and UFOs in Roswell, Senator Clinton managed to frame what may be the biggest foreign policy question facing the 2008 nominees - Iran:

"I am not in favor of this rush for war, but I'm also not in favor of doing nothing. Iran is seeking nuclear weapons," Clinton said in defending her stance. "And the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is in the forefront of that, as they are in the sponsorship of terrorism."

Directly confronting her critics, the senator said, "So some may want a false choice between rushing to war, which is the way the Republicans sound -- it's not even a question of whether, it's a question of when and what weapons to use -- and doing nothing.

"I prefer vigorous diplomacy. And I happen to think economic sanctions are part of vigorous diplomacy."

Edwards and Obama have made the Kyl-Lieberman amendment their rally cry on this issue, and it gives them the cover they need in order to avoid formulating concrete positions on Iran. They hide behind wishy-washy concepts like saber rattling, and never neglect to throw out the 'neocon' talking point.

But Hillary's answer, albeit irresolute, is the honest one. Maintaining multiple options for dealing with a foreign threat is not only practical, but it greatly resembles this thing called diplomacy that Clinton's critics seem fond of citing. Her opponents are engaging in a phony debate, where the only options we have to leverage are annihilation or nothing. Either we attack Iran, or we turn a blind eye. This is disingenuous.

Clinton's team has hit back following last night, positioning the senator as the boldest candidate on the issues that matter. She should take this a step further and make her primary opponents choose - if they truly possess such clarity on the matter.

Governor Richardson proposed unconditional negotiations with Iran. Clinton should challenge Obama and Edwards on this, much like Mark Hemingway of The Corner proposed.

If labeling a terrorist organization as a terrorist organization is bad diplomacy, then what does good diplomacy look like? If we must talk directly to the Iranians, then what should we offer them?