Sorry to be daft, but I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Yes, one can choose to interpret the statements of politicians either charitably or uncharitab

Sorry to be daft, but I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Yes, one can choose to interpret the statements of politicians either charitably or uncharitably. Yes, some people are interested only in tribalism. How is this related to demanding Conway's statement be interpreted as a credo of relativism instead of a) an unfortunate turn of phrase with accidentally-negative connotations; or b) a gaffe intentionally planted with the expectation that the media would seize upon it and spend 3 days nitpicking a technicality, unaware that they're only broadcasting the intended message to the open-minded listeners in the public, who will disregard the media's hostile spin? Liberal use of (b) is exactly how and why Trump won. He beat the media at their game by allowing them to think that foaming at the mouth over technicalities of his ambiguous wording was doing him damage, when it was actually helping.