Is it fair to have Ned Lamont cast as 'an antiwar candidate'?

[Stinky The Clown]

Obviously, I know he's against the war. My question is, is it fair to always hear his name prefaced with that term? My concern is that it makes him sound like some one-note Johnny. Further, to cast him that way is, in some ways, pretty dismissive of him as a serious candidate.

What do you think?

[Kagemusha]

1. He was quite pro-Lebanon conflict. So anti-Iraq war (only).

But expecting the other party's media hounds to be fair is expecting something unprecedented in American political history.

[onenote]

2. fair? maybe not. inevitable. of course

Lamont isn't a one-note Johnny, but face it, the reason he got the nomination was because of his position on the war, more than any other issue and indeed more than all the other issues combined. So its going to stick with him as a label, even though it is not the only issue he cares about.

on edit: since he defeated Lieberman based in the primary largely on their different views of the war, and since Lieberman still appears to be Lamont's only credible opposition (credible in the sense of having any chance of winning), its not surprising that the general election campaign is viewed in the media as just a continuation of the primary.

[NewJeffCT]

3. He's not just the anti-war candidate

Every article here in Connecticut seems to also call him the "millionaire businessman" - thereby framing him as a rich elitist.

Never is it mentioned that Lieberman is also a millionaire, or that his wife is a high powered lobbyist.

[onenote]

4. Mark Warner was always labelled "telecommunications millionaire"

when he ran for governor of Virginia. Didn't seem to hurt him. And for its worth, its been reported that Connecticut has both the highest per capita income in the country and the highest wealth, as measured by the number of millionaires per capita.

[NewJeffCT]

8. Still it is framing

Warner supposedly has the charisma to overcome that label.

Back in 2004, it was John Edwards the “millionaire trial lawyer” and John Kerry was the multi-millionaire with 5 homes, while Bush & Cheney were almost never referred to as multi-millionaires, despite their wealth.

[madfloridian]

5. No more fair than saying Dean was the anti-war candidate.

The media is not fair to our side. They are showing more Lieberman scenes than ever, seldom showing Lamont.

Of course they are dismissing him as a serious candidate. That is what they do.

[savemefromdumbya]

6. Lamont is the Democratic Party's candidate period

Joe is not the Democraticx Party candidate - he is the GOP II candidate

[Stinky The Clown]

7. How is that fact relevent to the question?

Are you suggesting, perhaps, that this was a backhanded slap at Lamont? If you are, then you're way off base.

In fact, if you still think that, do a search for my name as 'author' and 'self-selected 3rd party candidate' to see where I stand.

[savemefromdumbya]

9. no the fact that the candidate shouldn't be labelled