Mrs. Clinton, mind your grammar!

James Taranto, in todays Best of the Web, tells us that Hillary Clinton is not too keen on getting tough with Iran over nuclear or humanitarian concerns, but she’ll give ’em the back of her mighty hand if they mess with the oil!

What if we told you one of the presidential candidates accepted the last rationale–blood for oil!–but rejected arguments for war based on concerns about human rights or nuclear proliferation? Based on the media stereotypes, you’d probably think Dick Cheney had thrown his hat in. The Associated Press has the real story from Florence, S.C.:

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton advocated talks to settle differences with Iran but said Saturday that Tehran would invite U.S. action if it were to disrupt oil supplies.

“I will make it very clear to the Iranians that there are very serious consequences attached to their actions,” Clinton said. . . .

The New York senator, responding to a question, said blocking oil shipments “would be devastating to the world economy.”

If the U.S. took military action as a result, she said, “I would hope that the world would see that was an action of last resort, not first resort. Because we need the world to agree with us about the threat that Iran poses to everyone.”

Clinton said that is why, as president, she “would immediately open a diplomatic negotiation with Iran over all issues that we disagree with them on.”

Wait…wait …(pant)…. (pant)… okay, there…the shuddering has stopped. That last line…. (shudder…)

Alright, I know some of you will take issue with how Mrs. Clinton is contradicting herself by asserting that she will “negotiate” with Iran, after just a few months ago declaring that Barack Obama was irresponsible and naive” for saying pretty much the same thing. But c’mon, consistency is a lot to ask of most politicians.

We can ask for better grammar, though. In fact when we’re hearing from some of the “smartest” and “best educated” folks in the world, we are to be excused when we find ourselves shuddering at dangling participles and misplaced prepositions.

(shudder) “I would immediately open a diplomatic negotiation with Iran over all issues that we disagree with them on.” (shudder… shudder)

Ohhhh…it hurts. Say it after me, all of you candidates, but especially you really, really “smart” ones: “issues on which we disagree…issues on which we disagree…issues on which we disagree.”

Anything else is (as Churchill would say,) “English up with which I will not put.”

Yes, I know, I’m not immune to making a grammatical error. But I’m not running for anything; I never told anyone I was smart, nor have I ever told anyone to tell anyone else I was smart. In fact, I’ve frequently told you I never had the chance to become educated. But I did go to Catholic elementary school and we did learn our usages.

President Bush has been castigated for his grammar and pronunciation nearly every day of his two terms. I say this offensive misuse of language must end with the election of the next president! If you are a candidate for the most powerful office in the free world and you went to Ivy league schools, then set an example to the youth of the nation and for crying out loud, speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounced it to you, trippingly on the tongue… or at least mind your prepositions!