you always seem to end up on the wrong side of every issue, this should be reason in and of itself to verify the claims.

By the way Tom, just because some candidate doesn't make a fuss if there's suspicion of wrong-doing (and I really have some doubts it occurred here) it in no way means they don't believe it.

There's a huge political price to pay for claiming corruption if absolute proof cannot be found to back up the claim. Case in point - Ross Perot. I'm still convinced that someone planted evidence to him that that there were sinister things going on near the end of the election and his revealing them caused him to sound like a consipiracy theorist. It was a brilliant political move knowing his propensity to blurt out whatever was on his mind. Perot in all likelihood told the truth about the evidence he had when a keen politician would've kept quiet about it. As soon as I heard it I knew he was doomed.

If Obama called for a recount and he was wrong, it'd be the end of his campaign. The way he might be able to look into it would be having his staffers do independent surveying of the voters in NH under the guise of "what we did wrong. Why did you change your vote?". If his results came back that nobody did, he'd have reason to go further.

Art