Et tu Pennsylvania?

Has anybody noticed that Pennsylvania, which was called, oh, nine days ago for Kerry, actually has a closer margin of victory for Kerry than Ohio has for Bush? Using the Dems' apparent logic, why shouldn't Bush be challenging the results their (not to mention my home state, Wisconsin, which went for Kerry by only 13,000 votes)?

I'm not advocating this. I'm just saying that Kerry's best argument is that, if a 150,000 votes were changed in Ohio, he would have won by 272-266. Bush could just as easily say that if 150,000 votes were changed in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, he would have won comfortably with 318 electoral votes. That's the way elections work, you win some, you lose some, and at the end of the night you add them up, thank your volunteers, drink a beer, and move on to the serious business of governance.

Do the right thing! John Kerry, concede!

P.S. Chris Matthews last night let slip that the reason Pennsylvania went for Kerry and Ohio didn't was "walking around money." He said this like it was a political fact that everyone who was hep already knew... that the Dems pay people to vote. Do the Dems really want someone to open the sewer that is Philadelphia precinct machine politics?