That's the problem with asking the question, a "yes" answer requires a probe into the circumstances. A "yes" answer could be a reference to treatment for, say, schizophrenia. It also could be a few sessions with a therapist after the death of a spouse.

As to the assertion that there's no political stigma associated with mental illness anymore, if that's true, why would the Strib make the distinction of "mental" health when asking the question?

Just to be clear, as I think David will recall, the original tweet I made on the subject was the singling out of MENTAL health.

The stigma doesn't come from not talking about. It doesn't come from talking about it. It comes from treating that element of health as different from... you know... the health of "normal" people.

No, Jason, the criticism is the separation of mental health from every other facet of a candidate's personal life.

It also lumps mental illness in with illegal substance abuse.

Why? Because that's what Mark Dayton acknowledged.

Mark Dayton's acknowledgement doesn't really give you any more information about Mark Dayton's qualifications to be governor. His actions -- especially the closing of his office during the terrorism scare -- did that.

The question, then,...

If the goal is to learn as much about a candidate as we can, then we should be looking at more than what the candidates have had diagnosed.

Given that mental illness can be genetic, we should also be asking about children. in other words, children and families are no longer off limits.

Has your child been diagnosed with a mental illness, then, becomes legitimate, then.

Of course, that's silly. But let's suppose a candidate answers "yes" to the question the Strib is...