" Why would you assume that it's Obrador who is stealing the election and not Calderon? "
1. Obrador made clear that he would take action if he lost, meaning street action, etc. He has arrogantly assumed he would win all along. Obra-gore indeed.
2. The full first count had Calderon winning by 1%. You *dont* change numbers that much.
The corrupt ruling party *was* the PRI.
"But I don't expect anything particularly good to come out of a Calderon victory."
The defeat of a leftist for one, and the salvation of mexico's economy for two.
1. Just because Obrador would be willing to fight it out in the streets if he lost, and just because he's arrogant, doesn't lead to the conclusion that Obrador rather than Calderon is stealing the election. It could easily be the case that Obrador really did get more votes. Even if Obrador wanted and intended to steal the election, it could still be the case that he didn't need to steal the election because he got more votes.
2. The fact that Calderon "won" the first count by 1% means nothing, if that victory margin was obtained by massive theft to begin with. That is not too big a difference so as to be unaccountable for by widespread cheating. Remember, the ruling party is in charge of the vote tabulation.
Please understand, I'm not trying to exonerate Obrador or implicate Calderon. I don't even know if there was any widespread voter fraud. I'm just challenging the assumption that stealing Mexican elections would only be a province of the most leftist candidate.
In other words, don't project U.S. political labels onto Mexican politicians and parties. Obrador is not Gore, and Calderon is not Bush. Either or neither or both of the two Mexican candidates could be guilty of attempting to steal the election. And if Obrador wins the recount (which I think is unlikely, even though he's ahead at this point) you shouldn't discount the possibility that it was a legitimate victory.