Tropical Soulvangelical listened to Tim Walz's speech at the rally in Philadelphia hours after Kamala Harris chose him as her running mate. Maybe TSV's got his standards up too high because of all the hype regarding who will be Kamala's running mate? But all he heard was the checking off on almost exclusively pragmatic checkboxes, and as Kamala's campaign emerges, TSV sees this as reflecting the campaign as a whole, to pretty much -only- go pragmatic and not to talk to the more spiritual and spiritually existential issues of right and wrong and the inherent corruption of society as a whole. That he finds is a concern, not because he doesn't think Kamala can't win without it, but partly because she -can- and -will- win without it, and hence leave the impression that certain unasked and unanswered questions will never be important enough to address. He didn't hear anything from Tim Walz as to what a Harris-Walz team will do to restore America back to the righteous path that it veered from starting in 2013 with Ed Snowden, and which eventually led to -trumpism- and insurrectionism, including the idea of, "I can do anything I want" or "I can shoot someone on Fifth Avenue." At no point in Walz's speech did TSV hear anything to the effect of when Biden said, "When you get knocked down, you get back up." TSV believes it's a mistake for any campaign to go into a victory without answering some unanswered questions, because like how he saw with Obama and Ed Snowden, that spells disaster. TSV saw as Ed Snowden -alone- as driving Obama's administration into a complete tailspin to the point where TSV doesn't think Obama still had the confidence of Donkeys or progressives or Joe Six Pack at the end of his Presidency, and at what point in 2008 did Obama have to answer any debate questions about Ed Snowden? Did anyone ask, let's say some guy named Ed Snowden comes out of the blue and claims that the appearance of government secrecy alone means you don't care about progressive values. What would you do then? TSV sees absolutely no discussion about statesmanship and how you would like your tensure to viewed in history in the years and decades and centuries to come. TSV's getting tired of politicians implying they don't have to worry about how history will view them, because they're going to be dead by then, so somehow that means that the question doesn't matter. What TSV sees as truly defining statesmanship in the modern era is about going beyond those promises you made in the election and into reassuring the populace on basic right and wrong. It's just not enough for TSV for Harris/Walz to beat Trump/Vance in the election. You also need to beat your own personal tendency not to answer the big questions. It's not enough to solve people's problems either. At the end of Tim Walz's speech tonight, TSV was reminded of what Derek Jeter said on a car commercial that he thinks should apply to the leadership standard that TSV believes was lost shortly after JFK got shot. Jeter said that if you want to be the best, being good enough is just not good enough.