The early part of an election is about "framing" the election. It's about setting before the voters, a clear choice on all three of these. That requires having a clear message and getting that message through to the voters, usually through the media and paid advertising. If a candidate or party can make voters see the choice(s) in an election in a certain way, a way that's favourable to that candidate or party, then the candidate or party is likely to win. It's like a student getting the teacher to give him an exam with questions the student wrote—the student, having set the questions, knows what the right answer is.

All party leaders are currently trying to frame the election. Paul Martin wants the election to be about "Canadian values" in general, and health care in specific. His vision is of a Canada that is both prosperous and generous of spirit". He values social programs balanced with fiscal responsibility. And his record, and that of the Liberal Party, supports this. Paul Martin wants the question to be, What kind of Canada do we want? One with good health care and social programs balanced with fiscal prudence? Or a Canada like the US that has a poor health care system? You can see this approach laid out right from his opening speech.

The Conservatives, on the other hand, want the election be be about the Liberal's record. They are stressing accountability, waste, and bad fiscal management of the Liberals in their televison ads, in their press releases, and in Harper's speeches. Just take a look at yesterday's press releases: on values, Harper argues that the Conservatives have Canadian values like hard work, belief in community, and individual responsibility. [Canadians] are about being accountable for one’s actions, standing up for what is right, self-respect and respect for others. On the other hand, Paul Martin values corruption, mismanagement, and massive misuse of public funds and the Conservatives proceed to attack his stewardship of Canada Steamship Lines to show that Martin also cares little about Canada or the well-being of Canadians. That message has made its way into the news. The vision Harper is setting forth (at least so far) is of a Canada that will have good and credible government that will grow the economy in areas like the Martimes, will invest in health care, and will give Canadians tax cuts. Harper's question is, Do we want a government that wastes our money and is corrupt to the core? Or do we want a government that respects Canadians, manages the country well, is democratic, accountable, and instead of wasting surplus dollars, uses it in a balanced way, some of it going to priority areas like health care and the rest being given back to Canadians instead of wasted?.

(The other parties obviously have their own messages, but I'm not dealing with them now. I want to make a point about the Martin v. Harper dynamic.)

Yesterday was a key day for Paul Martin. He was going to lay out his vision for health care. It was a chance for him to promote his framing and to show that he had a platform conforming to "Canadian Values" with a vision that Canadians would like. Martin was supposed to have the headlines yesterday with good press.

Instead, it was a disaster.

First off, the Conservatives were able to compete for headlines by getting Bernard Lord's endorsement. This story was CBC's top story yesterday evening. Martin didn't get the headlines all to himself.

Next, Harper was able to get Martin on the defensive. On Monday Harper said, I am not someone who will raise taxes; I am someone who will invest in health care. Harper seemed to be bracing himself for attacks that he didn't have a strong platform while reiterating his tax cuts message. But, by doing this, Harper also implied that Martin, while also investing in health care, would raise taxes to do so or, at least, hold taxes steady. Harper also ridiculed the Martin platform as being, Tax me, I'm Canadian. Waste my money, I'm Canadian." .

The result? Take a look at this:

Martin avoided being pinned down Monday on whether his government would need to raise taxes to afford medicare. He was non-committal when asked several times whether his proposed funding boost would require tax hikes or new national health premiums.

He said only that his record as finance minister speaks for itself - that he lowered taxes over the nine years he held that office.

But he repeatedly declined to offer a clear, "No."

Harper has managed to get the media to suspect Martin may raise taxes! Even a Martin-hater like me didn't buy that. And then, the media, in what I'm pretty sure is a mischaracterization, is making Martin look like he's trying to hide a tax hiking agenda!

Martin is on the defensive. That's because the media has bought Harper's framing of the election: that the election is about the Liberal record of lying and about Liberal reckless spending and high taxes.

And to add insult to injury, take a look at yesterday's coverage of Martin's health announcement. Apparently the Premiers didn't like it and Harper got a few good soundbites, e.g. I say Paul Martin has no more credibility on health-care funding than he does over control of federal spending..

CBC's television broadcast was particularly harsh on Martin, and the CBC tends to be pro-Liberal.

It's still early in the election and a lot will change, but that Harper has been able to frame the election so early on before any major Conservative initiatives have been announced is worrying for the Liberals. The LIberals have used up their biggest announcement and Harper seems to be the one in control of the campaign instead.