Flanked by 19 American flags, Hillary Clinton gave a wide-ranging foreign policy speech on Thursday, in which she flayed Donald Trump for his \u0022thin skin\u0022 and \u0022dangerously incoherent\u0022 approach to international affairs.The speech, delivered in San Diego five days ahead of California\u0026#039;s June 7 primary, lambasted the presumptive Republican nominee as \u0022temperamentally unfit\u0022 to be President of the United States. The full remarks are here.\u0022Americans aren\u0026#039;t just electing a president in November,\u0022 Clinton said, \u0022we\u0026#039;re choosing our next commander-in-chief, a person we count on to answer questions of war and peace, life and death. The person the Republicans have nominated for president cannot do the job.\u0022Clinton noted that Trump has praised leaders like Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korea\u0026#039;s Kim Jong Un, quipping: \u0022I will leave it to the psychiatrists to explain his affection for tyrants.\u0022But that was just one of several statements that raised observers\u0026#039; eyebrows, in a speech that some said was full of fundamental contradictions—and hinted at Clinton\u0026#039;s own hawkish positions.After all, as journalist Robert Parry wrote in April, \u0022If Clinton becomes President, she will be surrounded by a neocon-dominated American foreign policy establishment that will press her to resume its \u0026#039;regime change\u0026#039; strategies in the Middle East and escalate its new and dangerous Cold War against Russia.\u0022Awkward: Hillary to give a speech on the very thing Dem pundits have spent a year desperately trying to ignore: her foreign policy.— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) June 2, 2016Clinton talks about Iran alleged nuclear pursuit one second and Israel\u0026#039;s \u0022security\u0022 the next. Drink! for no mention of Israel\u0026#039;s nukes!— Sam Husseini (@samhusseini) June 2, 2016Listening to this speech \u0026amp; Clinton\u0026#039;s words on Iran, Russia, \u0026amp; Israel, SHE sounds like the neocon candidate. Why can\u0026#039;t Kristol run her?— Anya Parampil (@anyaparampil) June 2, 2016#Clinton just put military action against Iran back on the table and criticized Trump for wanting to be \u0022neutral\u0022 on Israel/Palestine— Anya Parampil (@anyaparampil) June 2, 2016Hillary Clinton\u0026#039;s history of supporting interventionism puts her in a weird place to be portraying her opponent as trigger happy— Yousef Munayyer (@YousefMunayyer) June 2, 2016Like Clinton\u0026#039;s love for Henry Kissinger, Benjamin Netanyahu, the king of Saudi Arabia, and Dick Cheney. https://t.co/O1CA0X5QJv— Shazad Hamid (@ShazadHamid) June 2, 2016Hillary: \u0022America stands up to countries that treat women like animals\u0022(!!!) pic.twitter.com/80m8GbUvQE— Secular Talk (@KyleKulinski) June 2, 2016Good Clinton speech, BUT: Clinton is going to run to the right of Donald Trump on Israel/Palestine. That should sober \u0026amp; disturb people.— Jeet Heer (@HeerJeet) June 2, 2016Hillary\u0026#039;s foreign policy rhetoric mimics that of the GOP candidates\u0026#039; even in terms of phraseology and wording pic.twitter.com/VlZ45LouEo— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) June 2, 2016This isn\u0026#039;t hard: if you\u0026#039;re an interventionist hawk like @BillKristol, Hillary Clinton is your candidate, try as you might to avoid it.— Conor Friedersdorf (@conor64) May 31, 2016Clinton did not mention her Democratic rival Bernie Sanders in Thursday\u0026#039;s remarks.Pew Research Center surveys have laid bare how Sanders and Clinton supporters differ on foreign policy issues. Polls conducted in March and April showed that two-thirds (66%) of Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters who support Clinton for the party\u0026#039;s presidential nomination say that world problems would be even worse without U.S. involvement—just 28 percent say U.S. efforts usually make things worse.By contrast, Sanders supporters are divided, with 49 percent saying global problems would be even worse without U.S. involvement and 45 percent saying U.S. intervention usually makes matters worse.