In A Voter’s Guide to Hillary Clinton’s Policies in Latin America, Greg Grandin, of The Nation analyzes a history of "(s)upport for coup regimes, militarization and privatization, trade deals that wreak economic havoc— ... (that) reveal the failure of Clintonism."

He starts his tour in Honduras:

Honduras: By now, Clinton’s involvement in helping to institutionalize the 2009 coup against a reforming president who had the support of all of the country’s most courageous and bravest people—land reformers, gay activists, unionists, feminists, environmentalists, and so on—is well known. “Women’s rights are human rights,” Clinton famously declared. But in Honduras, she worked to legitimize the overthrow of a government that was trying to make the morning-after pill available and advance the rights of members of the LGBT community. In so doing, Clinton helped install a regime that has been killing women and men at an impressive clip. Death squads have returned to the country.

Grandin notes that in an interview with the New York Daily News, Hillary Clinton changed her position on what happened in Honduras once again, now saying “we need to do more of a Colombian Plan for Central America," which he characterizes as “(t)orture, massacres, ‘disappearances,’ and killing of non-combatants” became routinized under Plan Colombia.

Here’s what Plan Colombia did to that country: In 2000, just before leaving the White House, Bill Clinton ratcheted up military aid. Plan Colombia, as the assistance program was called, provided billions of dollars to what was the most repressive government in the hemisphere. The effect was to speed the paramilitarization of society, with government—and military—allied death squads penetrating the intelligence services, judiciary, municipal government, legislature, and executive branch. Washington money effectively subsidized the narco-right’s enormous land grab. According to the US government’s own figures, “in rural areas, less than 1% of the population owns more than half Colombia’s best land.” “Torture, massacres, ‘disappearances,’ and killing of non-combatants” became routinized, with trade unionists, peasants, and Afro-Colombians the main victims. The CIA’s own World Factbook says that a staggering 6.3 million Colombians have been internally displaced (IDP) since 1985, with “about 300,000 new IDPs each year since 2000”—that is, the year Bill Clinton enacted Plan Colombia. Added up, that’s 2.4 million people during Clinton’s eight-year presidency.

As you read this tragic history your heart will sink, your gut will tighten into a knot, and your enthusiasm for "Clintonism" will go downhill from here.

At the same time that Clinton’s State Department was lauding Colombia’s human rights record [despite having evidence to the contrary], her family was forging a financial relationship with Pacific Rubiales, the sprawling Canadian petroleum company at the center of Colombia’s labor strife. The Clintons were also developing commercial ties with the oil giant’s founder, Canadian financier Frank Giustra, who now occupies a seat on the board of the Clinton Foundation, the family’s global philanthropic empire.

Grandin recounts how after millions of dollars of donations from Guistra to the Clinton Foundation, Secretary Clinton abruptly reversed her position on the U.S.-Columbia trade pact. This bolsters my assertion that the details of the Clinton Foundation are going to turn out to be vastly more sordid than even her e-mail scandal.

Beyond any one country or policy, these policies fed off of each other. Bill Clinton’s multibillion-dollar aid program to one of the worst human-rights violators in the world, Plan Colombia—which Hillary Clinton now recommends for Central America (though it’s hard to see how the United States could militarize the region any more)—had the effect of diversifying the violence and corruption endemic to the cocaine trade, with Central American and Mexican cartels and military factions taking over export of the drug to the United States. This, along with the collapse of Mexico’s and Central America’s agricultural sector caused by NAFTA and CAFTA, kicked off the cycle of criminal and gang violence that today engulfs the region. This violence, in turn, has been accelerated by the further privatization of the economy (of the kind that Clinton’s ambassador forced on El Salvador) and the rapid spread of mining, hydroelectric, biofuel, and petroleum operations (of the kind that took over Honduras after the 2009 coup and that donates to the Clinton Foundation), which wreak havoc on local ecosystems, poisoning land and water. The violence has also been accelerated by the opening of national markets to US agroindustry, which destroys local economies. The ensuing displacement either creates assorted criminal threats that justify harsher counterinsurgency measures or provokes protest, which is dealt with by new-style death squads—of the kind that killed Berta Cáceres and hundreds of others in Honduras (and Colombia, Guatemala, and El Salvador). ...

And Clinton recommends more of the same as a solution to these problems. “We need to do more of a Colombian plan for Central America.” There’s no violence caused by over-militarization that more militarization can’t solve. There’s no poverty caused by “free trade” that more “free trade” can’t solve.

My expectation is that over the next months as voters become more familiar with Hillary Clinton's record her negatives will rise from their current 56% to well into the 70s. Perhaps, not enough to catch up with Trump's numbers, but enough that the Democratic super-delegates will flip to someone else in a contested convention - perhaps, Senator Sanders, or V.P. Joe Biden.

Meaning that for those of us who want to keep the White House out of the hands of the Republicans, the crucial objective is to make sure Hillary Clinton does not lock-in enough pledged delegates to clinch the nomination on the first vote. This will buy us another month and a half of insurance of having the FBI recommendations come out after we are past the point of no return.

Sorry to be so grim but the future of the Supreme Court for the next 30 years may hinge on this election. It is essential that we nominate a candidate who can win. Hillary Clinton does not appear to be such a candidate.