By the way, however, I think people are dramatically overestimating the significance of Kerry's "concession".  "Conceding" the election has no legal significance.  If recounts show he won, then he won... he can "un-concede" without much difficulty.  He made a smart and classy speech, and the door is still open to do whatever recounts and investigations are necessary to ensure the vote counts are, indeed, accurate.

And quite frankly, it's best if the Democrats in Ohio and Florida do that on their own, without being pushed by Kerry (HINT HINT).  Kerry can take a step back, concede, and assume the election is over.  If it proves, two weeks from now, that Ohio has screwed up and that the certified total really does change the outcome -- which, everyone should realize, is very, very unlikely given these overall numbers -- then Kerry wins, whether he has "graciously conceded" or not.

Personally, I do think there was quite a bit of fraud, but I don't think it was enough to change the outcome.  Florida is more odd, and I'd like to see recounts there perhaps even more than in Ohio.  Not because I think it would change the outcome, but because we need to have evidence that the system is working.

There is no possible reason not to recount the votes.  After 2000, it would be a good exercise, either way, in determining whether the problems have been "fixed".

But in-state Dems need to get off their asses and do it, and not wait for Kerry/Gore/Dean whoever to swoop down and rescue them.  For nationwide political reasons, they can't do that right now.