The GOP presidential field, hysterical and crazy they may be, but they are still ahead of the Democratic field in articulating a consistent foreign policy vision.

But there was some positive movement during the Democratic debate. And a counter-intuitive opening from the GOP debate that could help turn the tables.

Sen. Barack Obama properly tied Bush's foreign policy to the dangerous destabilization in the Gulf region:

...the fact of the matter is is that we live in a more dangerous world, not a less dangerous world, partly as a consequence of this president's actions, primarily because of this war in Iraq, a war that I think should have never been authorized or waged. What we've seen is a distraction from the battles that deal with al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We have created an entire new recruitment network in Iraq, that we're seeing them send folks to Lebanon and Jordan and other areas of the region.

John Edwards -- who has grabbed considerable attention for attacking the phrase "War on Terror" as a dangerous "bumper sticker" -- began explaining how a different foreign policy approach would work, in particular with Iran:

There is an extraordinary opportunity available to us on Iran, and there's a very clear path, from my perspective.

They have a president who is politically unpopular. The people are in a different place. He hasn't done what he promised to do, Ahmadinejad, when he was elected president.

We don't have economic leverage over the Iranians, but the Europeans do, the European banking system does. We should put two options on the table.

One, carrots; we'll make the nuclear fuel available to you, the international community, but we'll control it, you can't nuclearize -- you can't weaponize it. Second, we're going to put a clear set of economic incentives on the table.

And the Iranian people need to hear this. It needs to be not behind closed doors...

...And then the alternative, the stick, is if they don't do that, there are going to be serious economic sanctions. We need to drive a wedge between the Iranian people and this radical leader.

And Sen. Joe Biden, despite often taking gratuitous swipes at liberals in these debates, sharply and succinctly went after the neocon underpinnings of the current Iran strategy:

...first of all, I would do away with the policy of regime change.

What we're saying to everybody in Iran is, "Look, by the way, give up the one thing that keeps us from attacking you, and after that we're going to attack you. We're going to take you down." It's a bizarre notion...

But these welcome developments have not been consistently articulated enough for the public to fully grasp what a Democratic foreign policy approach really means.

With public understanding of Dem foreign policy being weak, it's easier for Republicans to distort it, say by cherry-picking Edwards' "bumper sticker" line about the "War on Terror," and morphing it into, "Democrats don't believe there are any terrorists."

Rudy Giuliani was the most potent at doing just that:

[Invading Iraq was] absolutely the right thing to do. It's unthinkable that you would leave Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq and be able to fight the war on terror.

And the problem is that we see Iraq in a vacuum. Iraq should not be seen in a vacuum. Iraq is part of the overall terrorist war against the United States.

The problem the Democrats make is they're in denial. That's why you hear things like you heard in the debate the other night, that, you know, Iran really isn't dangerous; it's 10 years away from nuclear weapons. Iran is not 10 years away from nuclear weapons, and the danger to us is not just missiles, the danger to us is a state like Iran handing nuclear weapons over to terrorists, so it has to be seen in that light, and we have to be successful in Iraq...

...during the debate the other night, the Democrats seemed to be back in the 1990s. They don't seem to have gotten beyond the Cold War.

Iran is a threat, a nuclear threat, not just because they can deliver a nuclear warhead with missiles. They're a nuclear threat because they are the biggest state sponsor of terrorism and they can hand nuclear materials to terrorists...

...These are real problems. This war is not a bumper sticker. This war is a real war.

Said with perceived gravitas, and without any forceful challenge, that potentially comes across as "serious."

When in fact it's a whole lot of hyperbole, misinformation and good ol' crazy.

And that gives a Democratic presidential candidate an opening.

If you're looking to shake things up, turn some heads and fundamentally reframe the foreign policy debate, go right at Rudy -- and his inflated reputation as a terrorist fighter -- as the one actually "in denial."

In denial about the failure of the current foreign policy.

Charge him with supporting an oversimplified foreign policy that blindly lumps every Middle Eastern party as part of the "overall terrorist war."

In denial about the consequences of the Iraq war.

Note that when Bush lumped Iraq with Al Qaeda and exaggerated the potential threat, he dragged us into the Iraq quagmire that has, as Obama noted, "created an entire new recruitment network" for terrorists.

Now Rudy is doing the same thing with Iran.

He is so in denial, he's on the path to repeat the colossal mistakes of the Bush administration, widen the war in the Gulf region and further strengthen terrorist movements.

From there, you can contrast Rudy's unserious approach with what a serious, clear-thinking foreign policy approach looks like, as Biden and Edwards offered.

Recognizing that Ahmadinejad is politically weak and can be isolated.

Rejecting regime change to open the door to cooperation.

Sticks to press people to the table.

Carrots to seal the deal.

And after Rudy is out of the way, you can repeat this with Fred.