The simple facts are these: When Honduras' leader tried to seize power in violation of the country's constitution, the Honduran Supreme Court ordered Zelaya to be arrested for treason and abuse of power. He was then deported to Costa Rica.
As this article details, Zelaya's arrest was legal--he was attempting to circumvent the country's constitutional provision that a President's term limit could not be constitutionally amended at any time. So he wanted to throw out that constitution and write a new one. To do that, the Congress would have had to have approved the idea, which it did not. In order to take it to the people for a referendum, he would have had to have garned a 2/3 majority in the Congress on the measure in the first place, which he did not. He nonetheless wanted to have a referendum, calling it a "survey."
A few other salient facts are these: Zelaya is a Marxist and close ally of Hugo Chavez, an America-hating, Marxist totalitarian dictator. He is a bad guy and not a friend of democracy or this nation.
So why is it that Obama not only came out in front on this issue, demanding that Honduras not only readmit Zelaya to the country (arguable), but further demanded that they reinstate him as their leader? Zelaya was ousted in accordance with Honduran law. Plus he is a bad guy who wanted to be Honduras' Chavez. Two good reasons to support the Honduran struggle to maintain their democracy.
In the face of an obvious stolen election in Iran, Obama feels the need to remain very restrained on the matter. Fine. Then he takes his restraint a bit further and makes remarks about how it doesn't really matter who comes to power in terms of our nuclear talks, something that even Obama supporters felt was an unworthy remark.
Yet in a case of a legal ouster, supported by the majority of the Honduran people, of a Marxist dictator-hopeful, Obama is threatening economic sanctions against the poverty-striken country lest it fail to reinstate the man who wants to (illegally) throw out the constitution and write a new one?
I have read a few opinions that he just wants to have a foreign policy win, and that he cannot backtrack from his initial position. Maybe, but that certainly seems unprincipled and a bit illogical. I can't help but wonder if the real reason is far worse: that a hard-left Marxist is someone with whom Obama can identify. This is not to say that Obama is some sort of Manchurian candidate; I only mean that Obama sympathizes with Marxist ideology and will support it in leaders of other nations. If that sounds ridiculous to you, take another look: the only part of that statement that is speculation is with regard to Obama's sympathies, which I cannot know. But as for who he supports, well, calling for Zelaya's reinstatement--he has made what he supports a demonstrable fact.