I'm sure by now that everyone who follows politics has had about a belly full of the fake outrage over Hilary Rosen's statement that Ann Romney has “never worked a day in her life," when it should be obvious to anyone that heard her, that she was talking about the fact that because Ann Romney has not worked a job outside of the home, her qualifications to advise the campaign on economic issues that concern women, when worrying about how you're going to pay your bills, has obviously never been an issue for her.

The Romney campaign has been desperate to change the conversation from the "war on women" — unless of course it's Mitt Romney accusing President Obama of waging one — and unfortunately Rosen stuck her foot in her mouth and gave them an opening to get the media to change the dialog to women working outside of the home.

Here's how Romney's surrogates were attempting to frame the debate today: Romney Surrogate Says Hilary Rosen Was Delivering Obama’s Message Against Stay-At-Home Mothers.

In the clip above, Luke Russert is desperately trying to hammer home that same theme, and even initially identifies Hilary Rosen, wrongly, as an adviser to the DNC. Their director, Patrick Gaspard, corrects him, which is followed by Russert literally badgering him about whether Rosen is a paid adviser, or an unpaid adviser, or whether she advises the Obama campaign. And finally he more or less asks if she even talks to them at all.

I'm not sure how many more ways Gaspard could have told Russert no, but after the fourth time, he finally stopped drilling him on her nonexistent ties to either organization. I think this dust up is a big distraction and it makes the Romney campaign look desperate. I would guess most people don't even know who Hilary Rosen is unless you follow politics closely, and as Gaspard stated, she's not working for the Obama campaign or the DNC, but sadly if she were, I think the media would continue to flog this story all the way though the election this November.

I really don't understand how they ultimately think having a conversation about what she said is good for Mitt Romney in the long run, because it keeps the focus on two things. One: the fact that Republicans have passed a ton of laws which are actually harmful to women. And two: the fact that the Romneys could actually afford the luxury of having Ann stay at home and raise their children and not work — a luxury which most women right now don't have. Most women have to work if they want to afford to take care of their families and stay in their homes.

For a campaign that keeps claiming they want to pivot to the economy, they sure were quick to jump all over this gaff by Rosen. Of course, I don't see how talking about his economic policies is necessarily good for Mitt Romney either since they benefit the 1 percent to the detriment of the rest of us, but the media keeps telling us that's his strong point. We shall see.

UPDATE: And for a bit of contrast to Russert's "reporting" here is some of the best commentary I heard on Rosen's remarks all day from Newsweek's Michelle Goldberg. She came to Rosen's defense on Andrea Mitchell's show later that same day and did a good job of explaining just what points Rosen was trying to get across during that interview the Republicans decided to jump all over, which is that Romney needs his wife to "report to him" rather than talking directly to the women in the electorate he's claiming to be so concerned about. That and the fact that Ann Romney is not in a position to know what type of economic struggles the majority of American women are facing because "she's an immensely privileged person."