I've been a Cross Fire watcher for some time now, and always beleived that Carlson & Novak were a very good barometer of Rove/RNC political strategies. Of course, much of the general strategy revolves around "up is down", "war is peace", "day is night" memes.
When Dean became the perceived front runner, the strategy was to say: "We'd LOVE to have him as the nominee". However, in their next breath, they would consistently recite all of Dean's perceived weaknesses ("angry", "north eastern librul", "he'll take away all your tax cuts"). Another example of this is the Iowa "latte-drinking" ad. If they truely wanted Dean as the nominee, they most assuredly wouldn't have done these things.
So, to answer my own question - yes, I think we have been "Roved". But, I don't think this strategy would have been entirely successful without the complicity of the SCLM and the "inside-the-beltway" dems. Although I think this complicity had been going on for a while, things seemed to change for the worse in December, when Begala, and then Carville, began really bashing Dean. And then, the SCLM jumped on the band wagon, culminating in the endless replaying of the "screach speech".
I believe that the SCLM and "inside-the-beltwayers" were, as usual, partially duped by the Rove memes (e.g., attacking Iraq made good political sense, Dean is angry/unelectable), but also, because populism/progressivism are pretty scary and a threat to the status quo.
Now, the Democrats will have a nominee that every one (Rove, RNC, DLC, SCLM & "insiders") can sort of agree on - and, by the way, four more years of Bushco (status quo).