In a Newsweek column, Karl Rove tries to advance the Al Gore-esque narrative that everything Hillary does is calculated:

And against a Democrat who calculates almost everything, including her accent and laugh, being seen as someone who says what he believes in a direct way will help.

Of course, Rove has no idea why Hillary laughed the way she did or used a Southern accent — he’s just pretending he can read her mind. As a result, I’m breaking out my swami graphic, which may become a regular feature in the next year.

Also, contra Sean Wilentz, Rove doesn’t sound scared of Hillary:

The conventional wisdom now is that Hillary Clinton will be the next president. In reality, she’s eminently beatable. Her contentious history evokes unpleasant memories. She lacks her husband’s political gifts and rejects much of the centrism he championed. The health-care fiasco showed her style and ideology. All of which helps explain why, for a front runner in an open race for the presidency, she has the highest negatives in history.

Rove’s last claim is a little strange, however. We haven’t had a truly open race for the presidency (no incumbents or VPs) since 1952, so the claim is true almost by definition. A more relevant question is whether a non-incumbent/non-VP has ever had negatives this high so early in the race. My suspicion is that the answer is no.