Remember: "I'm a uniter, not a divider."

George W. Bush spoke those words repeatedly during the presidential campaign of 2000 and yet, despite the fact that people (let's use the term loosely, shall we?) such as Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly insist all the "good" American people are behind the president, polls, discussion, and so much else indicates that this country has never been more sharply divided.

We're divided over war (and divided in our reactions to Afghanistan vs. Iraq), national security interests, Israelis vs. Palestinians, over national health care, over both Patriot Act I and II (with the government trying to make librarians out to be dissidents), over whether school vouchers should be implemented or whether Medicare should undergo a massive change, over tax cuts in the face of mounting deficit... the list goes on ad infinitum.

I'm reminded of Mr. Bush's oft-used quote this morning reading EJ Dionne's piece about the Republicans being wrong that Howard Dean (and no, we have not endorsed a particular candidate yet) and the Democrats are leaning so far to the left that they cannot hope to win in 2004 (308 days to the day we vote, people). I, like Dionne, think there is strong unity - not just limited to Democrats - among the base of people who feel that we're making some serious missteps in the War on Terrorism, on education, on health care, and on so much else.

Most people who identify themselves as strongly hanging to the left on most issues tell me they do not at all see Dean a leftist. As more centrist, I believe, in my own orientation (feeling that the US has to represent all people and not just those within a particular spectrum), I have to admit feeling that Mr. Dean leans a bit to the right of where I think. I base that not on campaign speeches but on living and working in the state he governed.

In Vermont, Dean was neither particularly pro-corporation or anti-corporation.

He opposed the passage of medical marijuana law (as someone who worked with cancer patients and hospice programs, I've seen marijuana produce some excellent results for some, if not all, who often had to argue ethically with themselves to try it for pain and nausea relief).

He helped push through the legality of civil unions while stopping far short of true equality for homo- and heterosexuals alike.

He helped institute a program that gave greater health care coverage to Vermonters (although not every Vermonter is guaranteed coverage, there are programs in place for those who earn particularly low incomes and full coverage for children in that boat) to the point where almost 94% of Vermonters have some form of health insurance.

He could be hard-headed and aggressive, yes. As usual, it depends on the side you were on relative to Dean whether you saw this as aggressive and bone-headed or impassioned and committed. We see this same phenomenon relative to George Bush.

Perhaps I live in a strange little shell here, but I don't go anywhere or participate in or overhear any converation between two or more people in which people don't seem quite divided already by the policies put in place (or arrogantly ignored) by the current administration. So I don't see Dean as whipping up and inflating the anger felt by so many; I see those already angry and scared and hopelessly disappointed in the current direction of our country responding to Dean because he shares some of their views.