Obama economic advisor to meet with them on NAFTA, then wrote a memorandum about the meeting and leaked it to the media suggesting that Obama’s criticism of NAFTA was not genuine, that it was essentially posturing for the campaign.  
  
When liberals in the Canadian Parliament attacked its conservative Prime Minister for interfering in the American election, he denied leaking the memo, but we must now believe that the consular official acted “independently.” 
  
In any case, Clinton was able to use this message effectively by casting doubt about Obama’s seriousness to change American trade agreements in a state that is virtually bleeding from the loss of jobs. The CNN exit poll indicated that 70 percent of Ohio voters thought Hillary had a plan to fix the economy while 57 percent thought Obama had a plan.
  
This issue cuts especially hard among older voters who are sensitive to job security and pensions and Clinton carried over 65 voters, who made up 14 percent of the vote there. The fact that youthful voters made up only seven percent of the vote may mean Obama’s young brigade did not turnout as strongly. 
  
The question I have about the Canadian story is why did the American media not attack the Canadian government for its role in producing such a document? Was it just an accident that it surfaced during the vote in Ohio? Did the conservative Prime Minister initiate the contact or did a low-level official in Chicago do it only his own? 
  
These and other questions were not followed up. Rather, the appearance of the memo became the story and both the Clinton campaign and the media used it to full effect, affecting some voters, no doubt, who were sitting on the fence at the last minute.
  
Some time ago, I suggested in this column that as Obama came closer to winning the nomination, the danger he faced was that he would have to oppose not only the Clinton campaign, but the Fourth Estate. It is a proven fact, with a slew of scientific papers, that the media plays the strongest role in public policy because of its ability to help shape public attitudes. 
  
That power is also present in elections by their interpretation of political events or their lack of interpretation. It may have helped Clinton in Ohio and Texas.
  
In the last few weeks, the Clinton campaign has been able to trigger the media to adopt a more negatively aggressive attitude toward Obama by charging they were giving him a free ride. In the last debate, for example, she opened by complaining that she was given the first question in the past series of debates and saying we should ask Obama whether he was comfortable or whether he “wanted another pillow.”  
  
Many TV and radio talk show hosts and commentators took the bait and went after Obama, using the beginning of the Rezko trial bringing up his past involvement in the affair. Obama said buying land from Rezko at a reduced price was a “bone-headed” decision and he returned the money Rezko contributed to his campaign. 
  
In effect, even though there was no illegality involved, it is being kept alive to prove the toughness of the media on Obama.
  
So, now Obama is in a posture, where Sen. John McCain, who closed the deal to become the Republican nominee on March 4, is firing at him; the Clinton campaign is firing at him; and the media is firing at him all at once. In that environment, he will have to adopt a far more aggressive media strategy and not assume that things like the Canadian ploy will just “go away.” 
  
His campaign has been good at what is called rapid response to Clinton’s ads, but the Obama punch has been comparatively mild. He will have to determine whether to go a bit more negative on Clinton and to put the media on the defensive as well for their tag-team connection with the Clinton campaign and force them into a neutral stance.    
  
If his campaign doesn’t adjust, the media may take this prize away from him before the Democratic party’s Superdelegates get their shot.

Dr. Ron Walters is the Distinguished Leadership Scholar, director of the African American Leadership Center and professor of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland College Park. His latest book is: “Freedom Is Not Enough: Black Voters, Black Candidates and American Presidential Politics.” (Rowman and Littlefield Press)