They're manipulative in a way that portends aggressive foreign policy.
Modern political propaganda's all about framing. A frame can be thought of as a 'psychological device that offers perspective and manipulates framing in order to affect subsequent judgement.'
Easiest example of framing I can think of would be this study I read about which tested framing effects. Participants were split into two groups and asked the same question about the same story with different framing.
You have a disease and will die in a few months. There's a surgery which if it succeeds, will extend your life by a few years, and which if it fails, will end your life on the operating table.
Group A: The procedure has a success rate of 90%. Accept/Decline.
Group B: The procedure has a failure rate of 10%. Accept/Decline.
Iirc, a little under half of group A said they'd do the procedure and almost none of group B. Same situation, same information, different framing, different ensuing judgement.
A real life example might be, "Tax Relief," which was a term coined in recent decades in order to evoke an implicit narrative about taxes. Relief implies a reliever relieving a problem's negative doings. There's an implicit good guy and bad guys. \It dovetails beautifully with the Southern Strategy narrative and with broader anti-government and 'taxes are theft' narratives and so on and so on.
I think Clinton's history of backing coups is reckless. Her affiliation with Kissinger is worrisome. Libya was particularly reckless. And the campaign guy's line about, "embarrassed," implies a narrative where apparently I think she should be embarrassed? But she isn't and that's presented as a good thing so am I supposed to read that not as, 'shameless,' rather as, 'strong with muscular foreign policy,' or something?
This, and other things i've read, suggests she's proud of her aggressive foreign policy. I think she's too aggressive. I think she's aggressive to the point of it being a problem.
But apparently there's, "a lot of bipartisan support for isolationism?" That statement's really terrible. It frames anything to the left of her neoconservatism as, "isolationist," and linked to the Republicans, which is about deligitimizing criticism as originating from the GOP.
North Korea is what isolationism looks like. That Benghazi hearing is what GOP tomfoolery looks like. Those quotes are just reframing her opposition in a negative light, and they're doing so specifically around her aggressive foreign policy.