Honduras WTF?

I thought Obama's initial equivocation on the Iranian elections and their discontents was at least plausibly grounded in a sort of skeptical realpolitik. We Americans have a pathological tendency to think of the world as divided into "Americans" and "People Who Remind Us of Our Neighbors From Whereverstan Who Are Just Like Us, Really," and this is often reflected by a foreign policy that is one part naivete and one part we-are-so-rich-and-powerful-that-you-have-no-choice-but-to-overlook-our-stupidity. So while I tend to think that a more robust response to the mullahs might have worked out well, I sympathize with those who felt differently.

But I am completely baffled by his reponse to the Honduras crisis, which shares virtually none of the elements that make Iran such a minefield. We have a would-be president-for-life defying the very term limits erected to prevent such a thing, being removed by a military acting in obedience to the country's legislature and supreme court, both of which are at least as democratically legitimate as the Presidency. Not only does Obama not equivocate, he sides with the President who is making a mockery of the rule of law.

Between Iran, Iraq, the financial crisis, and the global warming tax and health care spending bills, I suspect Obama's position on Honduras is 1% Barack and 99% unnamed administration official. Our southern compadres are also justly-famed for military coups, so perhaps he is taking a default position with little regard for the confounding factors on the ground. So heads, he is supporting a Chavez acolyte out of hard-left solidarity, tails he's a blundering ignoramus. Which explanation would you prefer?