In 2009, The intellectuals and progressives in Iran - i.e. the Students in Tehran only - by virtue of the fact that the media is completely comfortable implying that they know what happens in Iran while only really knowing vaguely what happens in Tehran, created an exciting narrative that there was a revolution occurring there. Of course this proceeded to a careless speculation that the resounding re-election of Achmedinajad must have been rigged, based on nothing but highly circumstantial and dubious observations.
So now, as proven by the ramp-up talk by surrogates for Romney, the President is "vulnerable" for whiffing on a "once in a generation opportunity," in not having "supported the Green Revolution."
Leaving aside the fact that it most certainly would have only hurt not helped for Obama to "aid" the revolutionaries: It would have hurt because it would unify and invigorate opposition to the revolution in Iran and it would also have hurt because even if the fantasy played out it would have brought another, equally radical leader to power.
More importantly, as I said then, I don't believe the revolutionaries were as numerous as the giddy in America wished. In countries like Iran, their capital city is an outlier, is an anomaly to the predominant attitudes of the vast, rest-of-the-country. You think the spread between our urban and rural citizens is big? In a developing country that divide makes our rural-ites look like liberals. The average non-Tehranian Iranian is not checking their facebook account and they are not interacting with outsiders. That Achmedinajad could sweep the rest of the country while holding 50% in Tehran is a far from surprising outcome. There was no need to be tricky. He had a captive populace, influenced by the state run media that was breached in one place and one place only and he was never going to lose.
So instead of accepting that, liberals did what they too often do and saw things the way they wished they were, in opposition to the way that the evidence pointed. I have a peeve about this, because the perceived advantage of hammering a philosophy based on a suspect view always always always comes back to bite you in the ass.
I'm not that concerned because Obama is a true master and I'm sure he's way ahead of this and he will either blunt the attack or take advantage from it, But as an object lesson it is telling.
This weird need to be righteously in denial of how things are is a weakness of this site and the people who wanted to believe that something truly revolutionary was happening in Iran when it was only a minority in Tehran should take heed. Romney has an opportunity to accost this president for being weak in supporting something that didn't happen.
And for that matter, "binders full of women" memes don't help the cause.
If people can tune out to the illumination of Romney's lying because it can be scuttled under the umbrella of a twitter breaking meme (see Joe Scarborough and his gang of boys attacking Mika Brzezinski); if people don't have to acknowledge that the Republican nominee just obfuscated his way out of answering a question because it gets brushed aside as just more nit-picking over his poorly worded "but harmless" response then what good is the meme anyway?
Hew closely, rigidly to the truth. What really happened? Then you will see how to slay the enemy.
Play loose with the truth - even if it's seemingly disconnected and harmless - and it will come back to haunt you.