The current primary race reminds me a little of Reagan's contest against Ford in 1976. As the challenger in the Republican primaries, Reagan ran very strongly in the primaries and prevented Ford from obtaining an outright majority going into the convention. Reagan, however, did not have a majority himself, so there was a
battle royale for the remaining uncommitted delegates leading up to the convention.
As the incumbent, Ford "used all of the perks and patronage of the Presidency to win over wavering delegates, including trips aboard Air Force One and personal meetings with the President himself.'
WikipediaReagan, OOH, tried everything to woo uncommitted delegates even break off some of Ford's delegates, who were seen as less personally committed. Reagan tried to convince people that he had gotten enough private commitments from the remaining delegates to hold a majority. He named Richard Schweiker as his running mate to appeal to moderates and Pennsylvanians (a move which actually backfired among the base). Reagan then tried to force a rule change which would have forced Ford to choose a VP and possibly lose some delegates.
My point is that while the current primary season has been agonizingly long, there is nothing unprecedented in a tough fight even after the battle appears to be lost. The 1972 Democratic convention had some even more dramatic events, but I've been waiting for better understanding for Humphrey's attempt to challenge the California delegation.
While I was young and ill informed in 1976, I remember very little resentment against Reagan for engaging in a political street fight over delegates.
I suspect the different public mood in 2008 has to do less with the specifics and more with the fact that the sheer length of the primary season creates a longing for it to be over and with Reagan's greater natural political abilities.
http://www.npr.org/news/national/election2000/conventions/past.reagan_ford.html