Hillary and her non-concession speech, a precedent?

[springhill]

http://www.dailyhowler.com/

Life would be better without cable “news” channels, we couldn’t help thinking last night. The problem is the same old problem—the problem of pundit gang-comment. Routinely, our pundits All Say The Same Things, thereby giving the (false) impression that their Approved Group Views are cast in stone. Through their gang-punditry, they construct your world—and viewers quite often don’t know it.

In particular, we were struck by the way the pundit corps gang-reacted to Clinton’s lack of a concession. It isn’t as if this was a surprise. From Dan Balz, in this morning’s Post:

BALZ (6/4/08): Yesterday began with an unexpected report by the Associated Press that said Clinton would use her rally last night to concede. Campaign chairman Terence R. McAuliffe immediately went on CNN to deny the report, and a short time later the campaign issued a terse statement: "The AP story is incorrect. Sen. Clinton will not concede the nomination this evening."

But inside the campaign there was confusion as aides struggled to figure out what had triggered the report, and expressed uncertainty about the day ahead. "This is very much a work in progress," a senior Clinton adviser said.

In short, all pundits knew, when they went on the air, that Clinton wouldn’t be “conceding.” They had known all day long. Presumably, a few of them even knew that some famous candidates, in the semi-recent past, never really conceded at all, taking their great, deeply-principled crusades all the way to their party’s convention. (Examples: Ronald Reagan, 1976. Ted Kennedy, 1980.) We don’t think that’s a great idea, but it’s an obvious part of the history. And how about high-minded Jerry Brown, fighting for the little guy sixteen years ago this week? Richard Berke reported his high-minded plans in the New York Times on the day of the Golden State primary: