It's late, and I'll post a full analysis tomorrow (or later today, actually).
I will say this. He did at least make an attempt to avoid the sugarcoating, and tried to be honest about the real situation on the ground. I wish he'd been more specific, though. He doesn't seem to think we need more troops, despite our low recruitment goals. His strongest point was when I pointed out the danger of an artifical timetable (I agree completely).
I tried to link Iraq to 9/11, but as expected, that link was specious at best. All that does is remind people of the lack of a collaborative link between 9/11 and Iraq, and the lack of WMDs. However, he's right when he points out that we must win in Iraq. Iraq has become a central front in the war on terror, and to lose, or pull out early, or to give our enemies an artifical timetable for withdrawal is bad for the Iraqis, and bad for Americans.
He encouraged us to support the troops, and praised their service. That was good. I swear he teared up towards the end. Let's hope he gives them more than lip service.
The speech was about a half hour, with nothing really new. He'll get a small bounce. The speech was better than expected.
The good crew over at Democracy Arsenal have a great analysis of the sppech as well, much more thorough than mine.