More from "This Week":

STEPHANOPOULOS: So who would be eligible to come under the U.S. nuclear umbrella?

And what would they have to do to get that protection?

CLINTON: The theory that I'm putting forth is, we have to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. We have to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons throughout the region, because I'm not so concerned about them falling into the hands of states, which is bad enough, as I am about falling into the hands of terrorists.

Because what you just said about Iran -- Iran is a state. It's an institutional being. That's why it is deferrable. Al Qaida is not. So we cannot permit there to be proliferation of nuclear weapons.

So, instead of having Saudi Arabia saying, well, you know, Iran and we are, you know, not on the same page here; we've got to have our own weapons, what we want to work toward is some kind of security agreement to prevent that proliferation.

Hillary first floated the idea of extending protection to Saudi Arabia in the ABC debate a few weeks ago. It was largely ignored in the messy aftermath that focused on the sins of Stephanopoulos and Gibson, it was notable because it was something bold and new.

But is it a good idea? He she come forward with any kind of concrete proposal, or was an off-the-cuff remark meant to establish political "creativity and strength?" 

I find it strange that this has been so little remarked on. To me the obvious comeback line would've been, "You mean you want the US to increase its role in the Middle East, and provide an umbrella of protection to the country that was home to 15 of the 19 Sept. 11th hijackers?

But neither Obama nor the media went there.

Help me understand. Does the idea make sense? Do the politics make sense? Or not.

Finally, would you buy a CD by a retro-psychedelic band named Hillary's Nuclear Umbrella?