When I say from time to time that Obama and now Kerry speak to a subject they feel they have addressed and solved of fixed the problem or issue being discussed.

Most recent Kerry example when answering about the American catives in Iran and I am paraphrasing..."there was not a single session where these captives were not brought up".

In his political view of just about everything he thinks he did the job, by bringing it up. In the real world he is looking mighty stupid. If they were brought up in every session and an agreement is reach....and the prisoners are not a part of the agreement what does that imply? Mean? Portray?

There had to be more important bits of give and take than the prisoners?
Kerry did not negotiate from strength, he either left them on the table or caved in to Iran for something else? Something else? Still waiting to hear what did we get from the deal.

I will allow that maybe....MAYBE they agreed that they not be part of the agreement and Iran at some future date, will make a benevelent gesture and release the prisoners, so Obama and Kerry can swoon and get in the face of the camera stating to the effect....se what good comes from open dialogue and friendship with an adversary.

If anybody does not care for my hypothesis then present why you think (we know none of us know) the prisoners were brought up every session they were in but did not make the priority list of the agreement.

Politicians, especially lawyer trained politicians have no attachment what so ever to the realities of their constituency.
That is why they (ALL) talk a good game and nothing gets done. UNless it is special interest, re-election or personal agenda driven!