Says Dan Drezner (at The Washington Post). The first is — as I suspect you know — it was mainly an attack on Donald Trump. He's "dangerously incoherent," etc. We get it, but what does that tell us about Clinton's foreign policy?
The second big problem is: "Commentators are already saying that Clinton is to the right of Trump on foreign policy, following up on previous pundit claims that Clinton is more hawkish than Trump on matters of national security." But according to Drezner, "hawk-dove distinctions" don't "really work" and are "pretty useless." He seems to like the idea of replacing "hawk" and "dove" with Hamiltonian, Wilsonian, Jacksonian, and Jeffersonian. In this set-up, Trump gets Jackson and Hillary gets both Wilson and Hamilton.