In the end the crisis certainly contributed to the sense that Carter was a failure, but he would have been judged a failure without it because he was a failure. He couldn't hide it and Obama won't be able to either. The lesson of 1932, 1968 and 1980 is that failed presidents lose. The events of each case will be different, but falure in office nearly always means failure at the ballot box.
It doesn't much matter whom the GOP nominates. The election is Obama’s to lose and right now I'd say he's doing a great job of losing it.
Early in the crisis it was a rallying point for the electorate as a whole and that usually shows up as a bump up for the President in office. As the crisis dragged on and it became clear that Carter was incapable of dealing with it effectively, people lost confidence in him and Reagan's reassuring performance in the debates sealed the deal. Throw in the lousy economy and Carter was perceived as a failure in three different ways. If Obama avoids a repeat performance and the economy picks up to the point of the (reported) unemployment rate dropping into the 6-7% range, it will be a different ballgame than 1980.
I said in '08 that Obama was a dangerous candidate and we underestimate him at our peril. I think it will be that way in '12. He'll have the power of incumbency and a media that is even more of an obsequious lickspittle lapdog than it is now, if that's possible. But there is one parallel to 1980 that is valid. Like with Reagan, whoever we nominate will have to have a broad national appeal, run a pretty much flawless campaign, and avoid making stupid statements and doing foolish things that hand the 'Rats and the media more hammers they can use to beat them to a pulp.