Mark Leibovich’s front-page piece on the sufferings of David
Axelrod in Sunday’s New York Times—the press apparently having
decided to take a break, at least for the day, from Rahm Emanuel
(Update: Or not!)—spends a lot of time cataloguing the political
elite’s dissatisfaction with the Obama administration’s
communications strategy, which Axelrod is charged with
overseeing. We hear about “muddled messaging,” a White House
that “lost the narrative,” and a “failure” to define Obama’s
“agenda and accomplishments.” Even Axelrod, who rejects
criticism on most specific counts, asks plaintively, “Why
haven’t we broken through?”  While the White House’s spin
strategy, and the way in which that strategy is evaluated by the
rest of official Washington, are interesting subjects, they’re
less useful in explaining political outcomes, or even the state
of public opinion, than most people believe. This is a tough
political environment for Barack Obama—one in which, all things
considered, he’s faring reasonably well—and no a