His presidency will be counted in speeches because its trials proved harder to overcome than the barriers he scaled to attain it. Often he spoke as no other president could, becoming, through his identity and eloquence, a receptacle for the hopes of Americans and of—and for—the world. Think of his speech in Berlin in 2008, when he extolled multilateralism and the rule of law, or his now-defunct conciliation in Cairo the following year. Think of his eulogy after the Charleston killings. Yet posterity might score him higher on a broader metric had he been as effective in the more intimate persuasions of Congress, as consistent in projecting empathy as at exhortation, or more resolute abroad; had he been as adept at championing legislation or facing down tyrants as he could be at stirring hearts.
This paragraph is extracted from *The agony of hope 24th Dec. 2016 The Economist
This article is about Barack Obama, and my question is the parts in bold.
Is the sentence saying that "Often he spoke as no other president could, [and he was] becoming, through his identity and eloquence, a receptacle for the hopes of Americans and of—and for—the world.(a receptacle for the hopes of Americans and of the world and a receptacle for the hopes of Americans for the world)? Is it a good sentence?
Last question, the "at" in bold, isn't it suppose to be "in", since "as effective in sth as in sth"?
Thank you for your patience.