David Greenberg writes:
what you may have heard, there is nothing slow or delayed about Hillary
Clinton's decision to wait until Saturday to formally concede the Democratic
nomination--at least as a historical matter.
He then goes on to provide historical examples of Democrats waiting to concede. The problem is that these examples are beside the point. A few comments:
1. I don't know the exact circumstances surrounding the examples Greenberg mentions, but I am not sure exactly what he is arguing. Were the examples he cites bad for Democratic Party unity? If not, then they are good examples. If so, then pointing to past bad behavior does not excuse current bad behavior.
2. The anger from Obama supporters stemmed not from the lack of a concession, but rather, as Jon points out, that Clinton gave a combative speech. (It's also worth noting that she has had no chance at the nomination for three months...)
3. Hillary supporters keep saying that their candidate won more votes than anyone else in primary history. If that is the case, and if she is indeed a hero to millions of Americans, comparing her to Gary Hart and Mo Udall does not make much sense. In other words, this is a unique situation that calls for delicate handling.