to me, i see this as the first turn into the President's own views on the subject. Before it is mainly background on the subject and the disparaging opinions that could be made

Is this an example of Orwell's "dying metaphor"?

Perhaps this is what Cross calls "plain-folks appeal" (211). It's also worth noting that the speech was delivered from Crawford, Texas, with the open Texas landscape behind the President (rather than the White House).

In this and other paragraphs, Obama does a good job of breaking down the "two-extremes". Cross explains that most propaganda presents a situation with only two possible approaches or solutions: one right and one wrong, one good and one bad. Obama tries to prevent people from claiming these extremes: that one race is "right", and one "wrong", by addressing the legitimacy of everyone's concerns.

Obama uses plain-folks appeal to relate to his audience on a deeper level. His diverse backstory mimics that of many other Americans.

Obama is stroking the American reader's ego. ("Stroking" a term used by Cross)

I can see Orwell rolling his eyes at this "stale metaphor" which is further weakened by the repetition of the comparative "more". Cross would point out that justice, equality, freedom, and "caring and prosperous" are all glittering generalities.

This nuanced statement has a huge impact on the reader. For one, it sounds good. The alliteration of stain, sin, and slavery catch the ear. It also pairs a biblical allusion of, perhaps, the biggest mistake ever with slavery: the "home of the free"'s deepest historical regret. Obama brings this history to the present with the word "stained", and he shows that the impacts of slavery haven't ended yet. Both Orwell and Cross would approve of this statement's simple language and almost subconscious affect on the reader's thought process.

This is original wording to liven up a common concept. Orwell would approve.

A few glittering generalities in this one sentence: "the kind of government they apparently seek" and "what they're doing". Who is "they"? What are they doing? What is this government they seek? Why does Reagan end his speech with an open ended statement? The rest of the speech talks about how tearing down the wall is important for "freedom of all mankind" and reuniting Berlin, but suddenly change the topic to what the Soviets might or might not be doing and how it hurts themselves without any specifics.

So I'm not sure if this is a pathos-appeal, like Cross was talking about, or if it's a specific narrowing of her focus. The usual victims ("victims"?) of this kind of tribunal ("court"?) are women. Dang, what would Hayakawa say about how important classifying things is in this debate?!