This is the weakest part in my opinion, and hits my pet peeves:
First there was his style to contend with. 3 minutes into his 'speech', I fully expected Jindal to come out with a story about how the Indians brought corn to the pilgrims and they all enjoyed a big happy Thanksgiving feast, just like the kind of stories I heard in the 2nd grade in 1966.
Jindal's tone was patronizing and he seemed to waver between delivering a Thanksgiving story to second graders and explaining that no one should trust bureaucrats like himself in government.
Watching Jindal speak after hearing the dynamic and historic speech the President gave just minutes before was a little bit like watching an eighth grader give a speech to his class after forgetting to bring his notes. Jindal had a hard act to follow and I think that had his speech included something worth listening to, people would have been more forgiving.
The lack of substance in Governor Jindal's speech had even conservative Republican pundits shaking their heads in bewilderment and groaning in disappointment. It was a disaster by almost all accounts.
When criticizing something, be specific, don't immediately jump to metaphors and similes. What specific examples from his speech can you give that brought you to this conclusion (i.e the "indians and corn" analogy)? What parts of the speech are examples of his "tone" that wavered between your two concepts. Finally, if it was a disaster "by all accounts", it should be an easy exercise to NAME some specific "conservative Republican pundits".
See, the thing is that it is easy for me to understand you because I agree with you. However, if I did not I'd be wondering what you were talking about. Even more so, if I didn't listen to his, or Obama's speech, I might not understand at all. I do understand that you are space limited, so to some degree you are unable to make long quotes or other extensive references. But in this day and age, I can often find transcripts, or get to other pundits writing, if you'll just give the most basic of references. Merely starting a sentence with "when he spoke of volcano research, he sounded like...." will do. Truth is, if you reread your article, removing the part I quoted, I think it still stands on its own, and in a more solid fashion in my mind.