When Bad Grammar Happens to Good Candidates
Still having trouble deciding who should get your vote? Why not turn to the
one issue the media has ignored: the candidates’ grammar!
I’ll try to be small-D democratic here, with one error each for McCain,
Clinton, and Obama. (I’ve thrown in a freebie from Geraldine Ferraro.)
Me, Myself, and I, Part I: Senator Clinton
“As I recall, I was invited to meet with them by a good friend of mine, Linda
Lader[,] . . . [and] by Doug Coe, who was and still is, the director of the
National Prayer Breakfast and the National Prayer outreach and it was over at
their headquarters in Virginia which is kind of a retreat center. And, they
invited Tipper and I to come to lunch and I really did it mostly for Linda and
Doug who asked me to.”1
“But the differences between Barack and I pale in comparison to the
differences that we have with Republicans . . .”2
In the first quotation, from an interview on her faith, Senator Clinton and
Tipper are the objects of the verb “invited.” Thus the object pronoun—“Tipper
and me”—is correct.
In Clinton’s debate distinction between Senator Obama and her, the difference
between I and me is that the object form me correctly follows the preposition
between.
Bloggers jumped on Senator Clinton for these subject-object glitches, but
let’s face it: at least she made them orally. That’s more than we can say for
the many lawyers who sign letters with “If you have any questions, please
contact Jane Doe or I,” or “please contact Jane Doe or myself”!
Me, Myself, and I, Part II: Senator Obama
“If you talk to those wounded warriors at Walter Reed who, prior to me
getting to the Senate, were having to pay for their meals and have to pay for
their phone calls to their family while they’re recovering from amputations,
they've said that I've engaged not just in talk, but in action.”3
When you use the noun form of a verb, as the Senator did with getting in this
comment on Walter Reed Army Hospital, you need the possessive form of the
pronoun: my, not me. Obama should have described Walter Reed’s treatment of
veterans “prior to my getting to the Senate.”
Better yet, just avoid “prior to,” a legalistic phrase that exposes Obama’s
lawyerly roots. Had he started with the more natural before, as in “before I got
to the Senate,” he would have avoided this common error.
Faulty Parallel Universe: Senator McCain
“Iraqi and American forces must not only use force to clear areas occupied by
insurgents but to stay and hold these areas to deny them as a base for insurgent
forces and allow economic and political development to occur in a secure
environment.”4
When you use “not only . . . but also,” make sure the clauses are parallel.
Here, McCain put “not only” before the verb use. But he’s arguing that
American forces must “use force” for two reasons: “to clear areas” and “to stay
and hold these areas.” To keep the “not only” and “but also” clauses parallel,
he should have written the sentence as follows:
“Iraqi and American forces must use force not only to clear areas occupied by
insurgents but also to stay and hold these areas . . .”
Past Candidate Imperfect: Representative Ferraro
Former VP candidate Geraldine Ferraro was criticized for her comment on
Senator Obama’s success:
“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.”
But amid all the fuss over the content, no one mentioned the former
Representative’s lack of sensitivity to the past subjunctive: her reference to a
hypothetical situation calls for “were,” not “was.”
Remember this: What’s the famous line from Fiddler on the Roof? “If I
was a rich man”? No—he’s not rich—so it’s “If I were a rich man.” The same goes here.
Ferraro should have said, “If Obama were a white man, he would not be in this
position.” That way, she would have been correct grammatically, if not
politically.
_____
-
Interview with Senator Clinton, New York Times, Jul. 6, 2007.
- Debate in Los Angeles, Jan. 31, 2008.
- Debate in Austin, Feb. 21, 2008.
-
On the Issues: Iraq, John McCain’s official Web site, Apr. 28, 2008.
