Personally, I’d be much more concerned about untreated bipolar than that which is being treated.

I mentioned on the live blog I did on Kerri’s show that this area also invites inspection of the children since bipolar disorder is believed to be genetic.

I thought it was somewhat indicative of the stigma that when Kerri asked about mental health issues, the guest said it was a legitimate issue. “What about having an affiar?” she then asked. Right, of course, having a mental issue and committing adultery are on roughly the same level. Same with the Strib, mental health was one question, use of illegal substances was the other one (and, of course, you’re correct about self medication; the bars are full of people with undiagnosed mental health issues).

It was also interesting to me that the guest in the first half hour said the question of whether a candidate had sex with someone not his/her spouse was “off limits,” and then a minute later agreed when the other guest said “everything is on the table” where politicians are concerned. Well, which is it?

When a politician ran for governor a few years ago, most media — as I recall — were waiting for him to invoke family values. Why? Because “everyone knew” (meaning someone knew someone who said something) that he’d had an affair. He never mentioned it, but that didn’t prevent one local humorist from writing a column in Salon.com that basically said “everyone knows he picks up women at the St. Paul Grille.”

I was ashamed to be in the same business as the guy.

Imagine if we put as much work in investigating and publicizing the candidates’ vision for Minnesota instead of the stump speech, vague, nonsense that passes for political coverage now? How could would that be. Issues. And, of course, how disinterested would the public be? Heck, this is the state that votes for people because their name is Anderson.

First I used David’s thoughts because they were so on point and his blog is a near daily stop of mine. You were quoted because of your obviously strong feelings on the matter – and the fact I’m a loyal reader of yours. Both of you make strong arguments.

If I left any impression that I thought David Brauer and Bob Collins had prior knowledge of Dayton’s illness, I apologize to both of them and my readers. That was not my intent.

However, rumors of Dayton’s illness was openly discussed by Republicans and Democrats, in my presence, and several years prior to my election to the Legislature. I have to believe that some of the media knew about it and chose not to investigate. That’s my opinion.

My question about independently verifying the diagnosis stems from personal experience dealing with those with mental illness. Believe it or not, many folks don’t fully divulge their history when asked in a medical setting. They hold back due to the stigma, amoung other things, I suppose.

But it is Dayton himself that admits that he is trying to get out in front of the story before an opponent can use it. Letting a pol define a controversial issue when the pol himself has something to lose seems to me to be something the press rarely does.

The balance of your comment goes right to the point of why this is such a difficult issue. Your arguments have been well reasoned. But let’s consider what Dr Frank Farley said on Keri Miller’s show – and I paraphrase,”If it is mild depression, that is one thing. But if it is Bipolar Disorder then that may be something else..”

That was my thought long before Dr Farley said it.

There are many people I *suspect* have a mental illness of some sort or another, but suspecting and knowing are two different things.

I am confused about your statement that you knew about his mental illness because later in your post you ask about what his diagnosis is. If you knew of it, couldn’t you share that information?

As I’ve said before, I don’t need a person’s diagnosis to know whether he’s fit for the job. I can tell that by their actions.

I know of one legislator you served with who lost a child at birth. Another lost a son in Iraq. There’s certainly some reason to suspect that such traumatic events could’ve caused some period of depression. This is classified as a mental illness.

When the former was running for re-election, none of us asked her if the loss of her child — or more accurately, the effect of losing her child — affected her fitness to serve.

Moreover, none of us made the distinction of her fitness based on asking her — not whether she was fit to serve — but whether she underwent treatment. Wink. Wink. Wink. If you sought treatment — bad. If you kept it under wraps, well, who’s the wiser, eh?

If the Star Tribune really wanted to tell us something about the candidates, the question shouldn’t have been “have you ever sought treatment for a mental illness.” The question should have been, “have you ever had periods in your life where you think treatment or therapy for an event taking place might’ve helped you.”

That would have given me more information about a candidate’s fitness to serve because I would’ve known instantly that anyone asking “no” is probably a liar.