It’s a minor skirmish in my eyes, but it has had "legs".  Obama recently gave a tough speech about combatting terrorism:

Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region. 

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will," Obama said.

Hillary took him to task, saying that it is irresponsible for a presidential candidate to make such "promises", because it sends a bad message to our ally in the war on terrorism, Pakistan.

Whoa, but wait a minute, Hillary.  How is what Obama said any different than what you have said?:

Clinton, in an interview with the American Urban Radio Network, stressed the importance of the Pakistanis "taking the actions that only they can take within their own country." 

But she did not rule out U.S. attacks inside Pakistan, citing the missile attacks her husband, then-President Bill Clinton, ordered against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998. 

"If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured," she said.

Sounds to me like both have the same policy position.

Josh Marshall on the recent unpleasantness regarding Pakistan:

The unspoken truth here, I suspect, is that Obama has struck on the central folly of our post-9/11 counter-terrorism defense policy — strike hard where they aren’t and go easy where they are. I think everyone can see this. But Obama got there first. So they need to attack him for saying it.