America is in a state of depression so it only makes sense that the leader to bring change would be too.

I think the fact that Hillary was melancholy in college and may have been treated for "depression" means she's sane, suffering from the pain of realizing how inequitable the world is and deciding to try and change it. In other words, it's laudable.

This idea that unhappiness, even severe dispair, is a weakness, is dreadful. It's the humans that don't ever feel intensely who are dangerous.

As for the guy that invaded Clinton's campaign office last week, I just saw his wife on Good Morning America. I thought this story would be terrible as the guy is being labeled mentally ill. Luckily the story is that he requested treatment repeatedly and was refused treatment, including the medication doctors told him he needed to survive. So in the end it's a good story about how are health system's problems are potentially lethal.

How many of us have seen and/or experienced this...a pshrink telling you you have to take a certain drug because the way you think and feel is genetically flawed, and then you lose a job or insurance and the doc says, sorry I can't prescribe the drug I've addicted you too any longer, and you, terrified, say, but come on, you said without it, I can't trust my own thoughts, that I'm a danger, and he says, uh sorry if you can't pay, you can't have the meds. It's a wonder we don't have more guys like this.

Both Clinton and the media seem to have been unusually responsible so far about this one.

I hadn't seen this, thanks for posting it. I'm not a Clinton supporter either but I also do not think we have advanced at all as a society beyond the time when Eagleton was dumped as a candidate for his past history of depression. I would say in fact that we have regressed rather than progressed. Kucinich's comments about Bush for example and many, many articles and comments by Democrats calling the current administration insane and psychopathological and equating bad behavior with mental illness over and over lead me to believe we are going backwards, not forwards.

Whether or not Hillary had or has depression has nothing to do with why I am not for her. She strikes me as a business-as-usual, corporate over all person and the country can't afford any more of this.

As regards the man in Rochester, NH, my news sources stated that he was known in the town as a person who was "troubled". This is a start. I suppose the full truth will out one of these days.

I'm pretty sure we can generalize that all President's past, present and future suffer/suffered from something human in their life time, hell I hope so. Who gives a shit if Hillary had melancholy, who doesn't? Popular vote doesn't win anyhow, don't forget the Electoral votes. She's not going to win, this country is not that progressive to have a woman President, and that's the real issue here.

Hell, Cheney was a walking health risk, what's the difference if it's depression or heart attacks? I guess Tipper Gore's depression is the reason Gore lost? hmmm. Makes a person wonder.

Well I don't give one little hoot if Hillary has ever been depressed or not. Lincoln undoubtedly suffered from severe depression but at least he never took SSRIs -- we can be sure of that. As many comments have said it wouldn't be normal to have never experienced some melancholy, but I'm afraid I do have some pretty big issues with her if she's being "treated" or even if she ever had extended treatment. Maybe that's unfair but when I see how these drugs blunt emotions and impair judgment and lead to impulsive, bizarre behavior, I sure wouldn't want the commander in chief to be on them. And the verdict is out on long term damage of extended treatment even if one successfully gets off. There is some evidence that people can recover quite well. I think, if she's on meds, it is actually a relevant piece of information that should be made public. Sorry if others disagree. And I know it would probably be twisted all over the place in the wrong way but I would want to know.

Then ALL government officials should have to disclose what meds they are taking, and heaven only knows they are probably ALL on one. It's a privacy issue that will not fly.

Here's the deal: due to knowing all medications can have adverse side effects--let's use Chantix as an example--just how far do we take the disclosure of medication being taken? because some meds affect ppl. with psychiatric adverse effects, what about birth control pills? acne meds? viagra?

People would be shocked at how many teachers teaching their children are on anti depressants!!!!!!

I also believe that it is total stigma to attach to a med-taker. That means I guess I can't run for President, but I sure can run for NAMI's top spot. Yuck.

I agree it probably doesn't fly to force disclosure of this -- where do you draw the line? I still think it's very disturbing to think of having a president on antidepressants, antipsychotics, stimulants, tranquilizers, hypnotics, God knows what else. It's a serious issue.

I agree Sara, with everything you state re: the integrity of the person's mind on medication, and of course you know I believe in violence and SSRI's connection, etc. I think we should question whether or not Bush is on antipsychotics for that matter. But the thing is, there is so much indirect side effects that can happen from obscure med sources, for instance, Dexthromethorphan cough syrup shot my daughter into mental health orbit--to the point she cannot tolerate any cough medication. So to just require the obvious psych meds to be listed...I feel we would have to ask them to disclose ALL things they take, and even then, what about booze? Why should a man with a DUI record [Bush]be able to be elected? I'm only thinking outloud here, not challenging you, just thinking. Also, the flipside to this discussion are the ppl. who are successfully taking medications, and can remark that their job is done better, due to proper treatment....