Yes, I'll be happy to elaborate. For me, a good speech is one that is easy to understand, clear, concise and without ambiguous language. I had no problems understanding the message. I have heard many, many speeches and have, at times almost fallen asleep or walked away confused. I have also listened to speeches that I didn't necessarily agree with but where the speaker's delivery was excellent or even perfect.
I watched the State of the Union address tonight and thought it was a good speech.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "it was a good speech"? I am perplexed.
That's what I meant when I said he was a spell binder - none of what you quoted in your 'introduction and conclusion' post means anything - none of it. It is rhetoric, delivered flawlessly - empty, emotional, manipulative rhetoric. It is his job to leave the vast majority of the viewers sitting on their couches as he leaves the Chamber thinking, "that was a good speech", not being able to see even one layer beyond the words, to the meaning, which is wholly absent.
It is - to put it another way - mind control and rhetorical hypnotism. If - and this is as hypothetical an 'if' as I can muster - there were any chance for all of these changes he is describing to actually happen, he'd be put out of commission so fast our heads would spin.
It's theatre, nothing more - and if you're satisfied with actors that perform their parts flawlessly, despite the empty words of the script, then, yes, I suppose it was a good speech.