In fairness, I think Hodgson's records with Finland, Switzerland and at Fulham and West Brom seem to show that he's a solid appointment for an entity with fewer talents and lower expectations. After joining mid-season, he led Fulham to escape relegation, and then took them in the next season to their best ever league finish (7th) and a Europa League final. After the failed Liverpool stint, he then took West Brom to their best ever league finishes (11th, then 10th) after taking over from Di Matteo with the club languishing in 17th. Those finishes have set the stage for Clarke to build on. I don't think you do that by being a shit manager.
However, expectations at Liverpool and England mean that dull and safe football that leads to being able to finish well enough in a competition is unacceptable. It's a strange appointment by the FA, and after Liverpool (and Inter), you'd think Hodgson would've known better. He'd be regarded as a success if he managed the likes of Finland (again), Switzerland (again too) and a host of clubs like Stoke, Sunderland, etc. but put him in a top level team and country where you're required and expected to win trophies and he's just not able to produce.