Unintended consequences are a constant in politics, and many veteran Democrats talk about the prison boom of the late 20th century as if it's an example of them. Speaking about the '94 crime bill last May, for example, Bill Clinton said, "The problem [with] the way it was written and implemented is we cast too wide a net and we had too many people in prison," as if they'd intended to fight crime but hadn't intended to end up with quite so many people behind bars.

In fact, the bill, which passed with a large, bipartisan majority including liberal stalwarts like Bernie Sanders and Ted Kennedy, wasn't a major cause of mass incarceration in a literal sense. But both the bill itself and, in some ways more importantly, the rhetoric Clinton used about the bill (which was different from the rhetoric Sanders used) were part of the larger trend of "tough on crime" politics that unquestionably drove America's prison population to new heights.

And when trying to understand what really caused mass incarceration, it's important not to overthink it. Mass incarceration happened because mass incarceration was popular.

The crime rate was high in the 1980s and '90s, so there were plenty of criminals to lock up. And people wanted them locked up. The public favored longer, harsher prison terms, more executions, and a punitive rhetoric that would back those things up. Indeed, the public didn't just favor these things — it demanded them. Crime and punishment was a voting issue for the 1990s electorate, and most politicians representing any kind of substantial urban area embraced harsher punishment of criminals.

It was my first time meeting Hillary and she was nothing but gracious and expressed her gratitude for my work in organizing the event.

I was deeply inspired. I had never heard such a detailed speech about human trafficking before. I was struck by her humanity and compassion for the victims, especially in her description of a 12-year-old who had been sold into sexual slavery and consequently was dying of AIDS.

Hillary’s Istanbul speech led me to expose a human trafficking ring that was operating in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The story I broke on these crimes in 2001 later inspired a major motion picture titled The Whistleblower, starring Rachel Weiss and Vanessa Redgrave.

I doubt I would have understood the gravity of the crimes that took place in Bosnia if not for hearing Hillary speak. For a number of years, this issue was simply passed off as inevitable prostitution, but her speech disabused anyone of that notion. I look back at it as a turning point in a coordinated global response to human trafficking.

A team of political scientists wanted to see if they could figure out why many younger women chose Bernie over Hillary. They looked for correlations between their Democratic candidate preference and whether women experienced gender discrimination in school or workplace, if childcare responsibilities affected their careers or education, and if they saw their fate linked to what happened to other women. The results were statistically significant.

Democratic women who said they had been discriminated against because of gender were more likely to choose Clinton over Sanders, even after accounting for ideology, age and income. The graph below shows how large this effect is. Women who agreed that gender discrimination had affected their education or career prospects were nearly 20 points more likely to vote for Clinton than those who disagreed with that statement.

....But you can see that on a personal level, what Sanders is interested in is the principle here — a bank that is "too big too fail" should not exist.

But it's not just Konczal or Sanders's staffers who have a clearer explanation of Sanders's bank breakup policy.

In her own Daily News interview, Clinton does a much better job than Sanders of explaining how a president inclined to break up the banks would do so:

Daily News: How do you stop too big to fail? What needs to happen?

Clinton: Well, I have been a strong supporter of Dodd-Frank because it is the most consequential financial reforms since the Great Depression. And I have said many times in debates and in other settings, there is authority in Dodd-Frank to break up banks that pose a grave threat to financial stability.

There are two approaches. There's Section 121, Section 165, and both of them can be used by regulators to either require a bank to sell off businesses, lines of businesses or assets, because of the finding that is made by two-thirds of the financial regulators that the institution poses a grave threat, or if the Fed and the FDIC conclude that the institutions' living will resolution is inadequate and is not going to get any better, there can also be requirements that they do so.

That's what Sanders is talking about, just stated more clearly in terms of specific legislative provisions and what you would actually have to go through to use these tools.

Then Clinton pivots to why this isn't the approach she thinks she would take:

Libya and the 2011 NATO intervention there have become synonymous with failure, disaster, and the Middle East being a "shit show" (to use President Obama’s colorful descriptor). It has perhaps never been more important to question this prevailing wisdom, because how we interpret Libya affects how we interpret Syria and, importantly, how we assess Obama’s foreign policy legacy.

The most likely outcome, then, was a Syria-like situation of indefinite, intensifying violence. Even President Obama, who today seems unsure about the decision to intervene, acknowledged in an August 2014 interview with Thomas Friedman that "had we not intervened, it’s likely that Libya would be Syria...And so there would be more death, more disruption, more destruction."

What caused the current Libyan civil war?

Critics charge that the NATO intervention was responsible for or somehow caused Libya’s current state of chaos and instability. For instance, after leaving the Obama administration, Philip Gordon, the most senior U.S. official on the Middle East in 2013-'15, wrote: "In Iraq, the U.S. intervened and occupied, and the result was a costly disaster. In Libya, the U.S. intervened and did not occupy, and the result was a costly disaster. In Syria, the U.S. neither intervened nor occupied, and the result is a costly disaster."

But I remember a meeting of officials late one evening. All Republicans – and if you recall that era, the New York firmament was dominated by the GOP (though in retrospect, a far more liberal brand than their current successors). The meeting included commissioners and key political figures. Names you would know. They were talking politics. This former Bronx political reporter was listening silently (always the best method of journalism) as they turned to gossiping about their Democratic counterparts. Who, someone asked, has been the biggest surprise?

“Hillary.”

“Really, why?”

“She just works. She’s not trying to get into the photo. She’s completely briefed and knows the details.”

“That surprises me.”

“Also, she’s great with the families. She takes time. She’s not like she is on TV.”

The moment stuck with me. Indeed, up until that conversation I probably retained the same one-dimensional view of Hillary as many Democratic males of my generation. A few months later when I met Hillary at an event related to that discussion, it confirmed the loosened-tie late night views of those Republican men and their off the record impression. And frankly, it started me on the path to supporting Hillary in 2008 and co-founding #HillaryMen with Peter this cycle.

So when I see Hillary’s words misinterpreted or cynically twisted for mentioning – briefly, accurately and without grandstanding – her role in those months after 9/11, it sends my own red flag flying, because my memory of that time is still so vivid.

The role of superdelegates is interesting, and arguably worth keeping an eye on, but they’re not the Sanders campaign’s principal problem. If we were to rank the key hurdles standing between the senator and his goal, superdelegates would actually be fairly low on the list.

Which is why it’s all the more curious that the Washington Post reports that some Sanders boosters have been courting superdelegates so aggressively that some are starting to make claims of “harassment.”

But this hypothetical situation is actually the opposite of the currently unfolding circumstances. When the New York Times says Sanders backers believe Clinton is well positioned to prevail “because of her overwhelming lead with ‘superdelegates,’” that’s not quite right. Sanders is, to be sure, trailing badly among superdelegates, but even if these party leaders are removed from the picture altogether, the Vermont senator is nevertheless facing a serious deficit among pledged delegates.

But to see superdelegates as the main obstacle between the senator and the nomination is incorrect.

My point isn’t to criticize spirited activism. What matters here is the best use of these activists’ time, and pressuring superdelegates is the wrong solution to the wrong problem.

NBC News
MEET THE PRESS Sunday, August 22, 2004
GUESTS: Sen. George Allen, R-VA, Chairman, National Republican Senatorial Committee;
Sen. Jon Corzine, D-NJ; Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee;
Tad Devine, Senior Adviser, Kerry-Edwards '04;
Ken Mehlman, Campaign Manager, Bush-Cheney '04
...

MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Devine, isn't part of the problem this: "Knowing then what he knows today about the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,"--John--"Kerry still would have voted to authorize the war and `in all probability' would have launched a military attack to oust Hussein by now if he were president, Kerry national security adviser Jamie Rubin said in an interview."
Is there any difference in position?
MR. DEVINE: Tim, John Kerry does not regret his vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq. What he deeply regrets is what the president did with that authority. The president rushed to war without a plan to win the peace. And today American troops and American taxpayers are baring the burden almost alone because of the president's mistakes.
MR. RUSSERT: But Jamie Rubin said in all probability John Kerry would have launched a military attack.
MR. DEVINE: Tim, again, the authorization was the right vote, it was the right choice. In fact, in 1998, John Kerry supported regime change in Iraq. And the fact of the matter is that this president said he would go to the United Nations, exhaust every remedy, build a broad international coalition. He failed to do so and the result of that president's failures is what's going on today in Iraq. It is a huge problem being paid for by American taxpayers and American troops.
MR. RUSSERT: But why launch an attack if there were no weapons of mass destruction?
MR. DEVINE: Well, Tim, listen, it's a--you know, hypothetical is always impossible to deal with. I mean, the fact--this is the reality. We can deal with the reality. Saddam Hussein needed to be held accountable. There was a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. Every step along the way—once the president got that authority, he chose the wrong course. And today, as a result of that choice, of the president and the vice president, the decisions they made, American taxpayers are footing a bill of $200 billion in Iraq. John Kerry has said there is a way to win the war on terror, to be tough and smart to do it, and that we shouldn't be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them down here in America.
MR. RUSSERT: But if he voted to authorize the war and his foreign policy advisers said he would have launched an attack on Saddam, what's the difference between John Kerry's position and George Bush's?
MR. DEVINE: Well, listen, the president--the difference is the president made mistake after mistake in this country and our troops are paying for it today. John Kerry would never have pursued the course of action that the president of the United States has pursued. John Kerry would have built a true international coalition to shoulder the burden with America. He would have put it together the right way. Unfortunately, the president has cost this nation with his costly mistakes and we're paying the price every day.
MR. RUSSERT: Who would have been in the coalition that was not?
MR. DEVINE: Tim, I think a number of countries, potentially, could have been in that coalition. But that's unknowable.
MR. RUSSERT: France and Germany?
MR. DEVINE: What we know, Tim--all we can know is this, that John Kerry would have kept his word and not broken it. The president promised to build a true, broad international coalition and he failed to do so. And the result of that failure is the cost being paid by America today.

Rev. Al Sharpton comments on Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders' stances on the 1994 crime bill. He also talks about Sanders demanding that Bill Clinton apologize to Americans for defending his use of the term, "super predator." Duration: 4:55