"Obama Supporter" Knows Obama Lied ... Remains Obama Supporter

Katie Granju is a Knoxville blogger that gained prominence because Glen Reynolds features her.

I'm jealous.

But what's interesting is that despite her conclusion that Obama and his spokesman Axlerod lied about this contacts with Blagojevich her support has not wavered.

She concludes

So I'm supposed to believe that Axelrod "misspoke" when he said he knew that his boss had spoken with the governor? Because I don't. Either Axelrod is lying or Obama is lying. That's my position based on my knowledge of how politics works, and the evidence so far.

As I said yesterday, it would be completely expected and reasonable, and 100% ethical for Obama to have spoken with Blagojevich about candidates for the Senate seat. Of course they spoke. Again, as I said yesterday, I in no way believe that Obama was aware of or involved in Blagojevich's nasty pay-to-play scheme, but I don't believe for one second that the pair didn't have some discussion about who would succeed Obama.

The bottom line?

Look, I was - and am - an outspoken Obama supporter, but I call them like I see them. And this time, to my dismay, I see Obama and his staff being ineptly disingenuous in a seriously misguided attempt at crisis management.

The correct approach for the Obama team would have been to make it clear that this isn't their crisis to manage. It has absolutely nothing to do with Obama, and he could have driven that point home by being completely upfront. He should have told the truth, saying something like, "Yes, of course I've discussed who would take my vacant Senate seat with the governor, but I had absolutely no knowledge that the guy was at the same time attempting to illegally sell the seat to the highest bidder. That sickens me." That's what Obama should have said.

I believe that he lied instead, which only makes him look guilty of something when he isn't.

So she remains a committed Obama supporter - as does the MSM - despite the obvious conclusion that both Obama and Axlerod lied.

She concludes that neither of them needed to lie. She KNOWS that Obama is not guilty of anything so she is puzzled by the lie.

That, as they say in logic class, is putting the cart before the horse. If a lie is not necessary, in fact, if it's counter intuitive, why tell one?

I would expect an intelligent person to ask the question and not assume the answer. On the other hand, we are dealing with a writer for the MSM.