During the Democratic debates one thing that struck me about Dean was that always he seemed particularly conscious of his time alotment and almost schoolboy proud when he managed to keep his remarks under the limit. He didn't have to do this - most of the other candidates were stepping over the line, so he wouldn't have stood out if he didn't - but he did.
Now when Dean was governor, one of his most famous or infamous decisions was to go ahead and sign the Civil Unions bill into law. And why did he do this? Conscience? Liberal sympathy for the oppressed? No doubt that was part of it, but according to his public statements the deciding factor was the opinion of the state court, which he had to obey.
On Iraq, Dean has made clear that it was not war per se but the illegitimacy of a preemptive attack without U.N. sanction that drove him to oppose it.
Sure, many Democrats felt the same way. But now look at the mini-tempest with regard to Osama that sprung up yesterday. Dean's first reaction was to say, as President, my first obligation would be to ensure that he was given a trial in strict accordance with the rules. It was naive of him to forget that the first thing a politician has to do when Osama's name comes up is curse, but revealing too of his deep-seated regard for the law.
Finally, his critique of the way Bush has managed the economy centers on the claim that corporations no longer obey the rules of the game in capitalism, and government no longer enforces the rules; Dean's reregulation project would basically be an effort to reverse this trend.
I think it's safe to say then that obedience to the law is something that lies at the center of Dean's governing philosophy and is a deep-rooted part of his being. His reputation as a wild man with a large mob of undisciplined supporters tends to obscure the fact, but there it is.