I never thought I'd defend Kellyanne Conway.

President-elect Donald Trump spokesperson and adviser deserves to be recognized for hes merit-or, in my view, his guilt-for saving Trump's shaky campaign and helping one of the most dangerous people ever to reach the presidency.

Besides, Conway and I are not exactly friends. During the Republican primaries, when she worked for a Super PAC that supported Ted Cruz, we had a clash on Fox News when I accused Cruz-who turns out to be my friend- of not telling the truth about the Senate's immigration law proposal.

Still, somebody must defend Conway from the attack of unfair critics launched media against her, as well as from the campaign of rumors propitiated by the closer circle of Trump advisors, all of them men.

What put Conway at the crossroads was his public statement - on twitter and on television - against the idea that Trump named Mitt Romney, one of his harshest critics, as secretary of state. He hinted that Romney would not be loyal, and that if he was installed in Foggy Bottom, he could create a government within a government. She also said that Trump's most fervent supporters, who were with him from the start, would feel "betrayed" by that choice.

Still, somebody must defend Conway from the attack of unfair critics launched media against her, as well as from the campaign of rumors propitiated by the closer circle of Trump advisors, all of them men.

It was reported on the MSNBC program "Morning Joe" that Trump was "furious" after Conway dared to pronounce her statements independently. Senior advisers close to the president-elect say now that Conway "rebelled" because she did not get the job offer she expected from Trump.

Conway attacked the "Morning Joe" report - and the subsequent comments from a panel composed almost entirely of men- as "fake" and "sexist."

Sure, Conway's public comments are unorthodox. But what part of Trump's campaign, or transition, was orthodox?

Trump owes nothing to Romney, but he owes Conway enough. He relied on his advice and instincts for several months, and it worked. And now, suddenly, when it comes to Romney, do not you know what he's saying?

Also, after four years living with Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State under President Obama, can we really dismiss the possibility that a former critic will pursue interests that are different from those of the government?

Clinton disobeyed orders from White House officials not to carry out official businessto her private email server. She ignored Obama's warning to stay away from Clinton's former aide, Sydney Blumenthal, whom Vanity Fair described as "a kind of ideas provider to [Hillary] Clinton, seven days a week and 24 hours a day." And she spoke publicly in his 2014 book "Hard Choices" of her disagreements with Obama on everything from the rise of the Islamic state to the levels of troops in Afghanistan and the president's extremely optimistic Arab Spring position and her initial refusal to arm the rebels in Syria.

We Americans have lost the ability to talk to each other. We constantly jump and come to conclusions about the motives of others, trying to ideologically pigeonhole them.

So Conway's claim that loyalty matters is not absurd when a president is picking America's top diplomat. And she is right in questioning whether Romney will follow Trump's program and will not work on advancing his own.

Still, Trump has so much talent to manipulate the media that you can never know. It might happen that, instead of an internal civil war inside the Trump Field, what we are seeing is a carefully orchestrated and directed theatrical performance by Trump himself.

Because we can not assure what is really going on, let me defend something much greater than what Conway is saying-namely, the idea that there should be more nuances in our political discourse. We Americans have lost the ability to talk to each other. We constantly jump and come to conclusions about the motives of others, trying to ideologically pigeonhole them.

For example, it is assumed that Conway can not be defended for questioning Romney and thinking at the same time that Romney would be a good candidate as secretary of state.

It can not. For an elected president some of whose appointments were direct shots, choosing Romney would be the perfect corner shot. It would show that Trump is safe enough to bring critics to his team, and that he values ​​a calming influence.

In the end, the country would be well served if Trump heeded Conway's concerns and then, in spite of them, he nominated Mitt Romney as Secretary of State.