Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Bill Clinton to deliver unvetted speech at DNC, but some worry
While former President Bill Clinton is on deck to speak at the Democratic National Convention Wednesday night, some are worried about another Clint Eastwood moment since Clinton's speech has yet to be Obama campaign-approved.
Clinton has not submitted his Democratic National Convention speech to the Obama campaign for "vetting" yet, but a senior campaign official told CBS News Monday that the campaign isn't concerned about it.
"He will get his speech done when he wants to get his speech done. We're not worried one bit," the campaign official said.
Clinton has not submitted his Democratic National Convention speech to the Obama campaign for "vetting" yet, but a senior campaign official told CBS News Monday that the campaign isn't concerned about it.
"He will get his speech done when he wants to get his speech done. We're not worried one bit," the campaign official said.
Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/332164
Is anyone concerned?
74 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Such crap. Bill Clinton is party first. He knows the score.
YET 
On edit: The Big Dog can speak eloquently for hours, the biggest worry I would have is getting him to stop before the sun rises in the east. Teleprompters? He don't need no stinking prompters either.
on Wednesday in order to try to out do everyone else
Unsupported attributions
"Weasel words" are statements which appear to assert something but subtly imply something different, opposite or stronger in the way they are made. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority with no substantial basis. Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed.[5] However, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves, since that would be original research or would violate the neutral point of view. Equally, editorial irony and damning with faint praise have no place in Wikipedia articles.
The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution.
Articles including weasel words should ideally be rewritten such that they are supported by reliable sources, or they may be tagged with the {{Weasel}} template so to identify the problem to future readers (who may elect to fix the issue).
... some people say, many scholars state, it is believed, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says ...
"Weasel words" are statements which appear to assert something but subtly imply something different, opposite or stronger in the way they are made. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority with no substantial basis. Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed.[5] However, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves, since that would be original research or would violate the neutral point of view. Equally, editorial irony and damning with faint praise have no place in Wikipedia articles.
The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution.
Articles including weasel words should ideally be rewritten such that they are supported by reliable sources, or they may be tagged with the {{Weasel}} template so to identify the problem to future readers (who may elect to fix the issue).
I hope they have given him a very strict time limit....
He could go on for HOURS! 
ruined/used, President Clinton's' surplus. He doesn't have to hold anything back and can name- names 
Really? Your posts are quite odd, did you think nobody would notice?
