Ok, briefly.
1) As in, expressing the general view of these events, which Obama was channelling.
2) How the US engages the Brotherhood, and if and when it does, are complicated questions, particularly now they will "run" the country, bar another military coup. The point being made is that, in 2009 Obama chose to court the Brotherhood rather than the liberal, conservative and left democtratic opposition in Eqypt.Condi did the opposite, by championing Ayman Nour.
3) The unmentioned tension in that piece is between rhetoric and action, which never exactly track. But in the case of both speeches, I briefly suggest ways in which the speechs of Obama and Condi overlapped with actual foreign policy and its implementation. A speech on its own doesn't mean much, but I was analysing the differences in the two speechs, and this spoke for the difference between each administration.
4) The US doesn't determine the Egyptian elections; it has a say in how these elections are conducted, indirectly through NGOs and election monitors and diplomatic pressure.
5) The different definitions, or expectations, of democracy are addressed in both speeches; Obama tilts towards "self-determiniation", Condi clearly defends "liberal values" -- I don't go into it in great detail, because it is not a very theoretical piece. But the question -- what kind of democracy? -- hangs in the air, with no easy answer or single definition.
That's part of what's happening: the Brotherhood obscure their reactionary and anti-democratic instincts and values by setting up a political party called the Freedom and Justice Party. Fine, that's the way it goes; I see no reason to invest great hope in this arrangement.