I was a bit torn — I profusely disliked Purdum’s labeling, but I sympathized with his political view (I’m very much anti-Palin).
Maybe the answer is just to note that her unquestionably erratic behavior (agreed upon even by the Republicans she worked with in the campaign) still falls outside the realm of DSM-IV mental health diagnoses. Millions of people act erratically every day and never visit a psychiatrist — or need to. (Though they might, of course, benefit from gentle counseling.)

In response to Larry’s comment, I hope that most of us would consider attacking someone in about the lowest manner possible–questioning their mental health and vilifying them with the language of stigma. This is something that people of good will, regardless of political persuasion, should be able to unite on.
I was still in high school (and still blissfully ignorant of mental health issues) when Thomas Eagleton was forced to withdraw from the Democratic ticket in 1972 due to mental health issues. I just refreshed my memory at Wikipedia, and it appears to me that there was genuine concern as to whether he could function effectively as Vice-President and possibly as President, should the Democratic ticket have won. What I read in Purdum’s article was not such a legitimate concern, but a personal attack intended to marginalize and discredit a potential future Presidential candidate by the use of the language of mental health stigma. That’s not a good thing whether one agrees with the person or not.

P.S.–I made a booboo. When I said “I hope that most of us would consider attacking someone in about the lowest manner possible–questioning their mental health and vilifying them with the language of stigma.”. I neglected to add “…to be reprehensible and irresponsible.”

The Vanity FAir article referenced here was an obvious and vitrolic article attacking the former vice-presidential candidate in a most churlish and contentious manner….hardly a credible source for a professional discussion of a serious illness. If Govenor Palin was in serious depression at the time how would this author know and since she was constantly in the lime-light would have been impossible to cover-up. This is just mean speculation and hardly worthy of this blog. I am disappointed so see reference to it in Beyond Blue.

IMHO, exposing mental health stigma for the dastardly thing it is makes it quite appropriate for Beyond Blue.

I think it’s sad, and even scary, that people dismiss an article without even reading it, and label the article as an “attack” just because it contains negative quotes. Purdum himself was not labeling or attacking–he was quoting the words of people he interviewed.
Based on my observations of Palin’s speeches, she has always struck me as erratic. Could this be post-partum based? Maybe. In her resignation speech her thoughts seemed incoherent and nonsensical. Is that still post-partum? I doubt it.

Erratic does not equal postpartum depression. Erratic doesn’t necessarily equal mental illness. Almost all of us are erratic at one time or another in our lives.

“Almost all of us are erratic at one time or another in our lives.”
But the article, and this post, isn’t about “almost all of us at one time or another in our lives.” It’s about a candidate for vice president of the U.S. It’s apples and oranges to compare the erratic behavior of regular folks with that of someone like Palin who thinks she is qualified and able for such a high office.

I read the entire article, and while no Palin fan, I thought it was a clear, one-sided attack and it is sad to see it here.
On the other hand, the author of Beyond Blue uses the term “whack job” herself and therefore cannot comment if others do.

The author is quoting from other people. These other people are commenting on their observations of Palin during the campaign. They observed things they thought was negative. So why does this make the article reporting it an “attack”?????

when someone asks you to ponder some situation they are mentally ill. such as the religious cult Mormons. the bible was wrong to say they translated names. so is the book of Mormon there was no language 2000 years ago that had the symbols to produce any of the names of the bible or book of mormon. your name never changes. there was no item of each that was available during those time periods. the camel is fron austraila. The donkey from New mexico the were shipped to the middle east in 1583. English with 26 letters is only since 1630. how was the bible translated in 1610 or 1622 before the letters were available to do so. see missing letter J part one. all religions are cults (common used latterday term salvery) why can’t we get an education and get along with each other? thank you John Cunningham johncunningham1956@netzero.com