So I thought to counter-balance that negative Nancy hit list post, I’d share a heartwarming story about a ditzy blonde and a former Soviet Union nation.

And here I was, thinking the U.S. had good taste when I found out ye good ole Americans snubbed our favorite down home Goldie Locks. I am shocked and appalled that Jessica Simpson’s new movie, “Blonde Amtition” went straight to DVD, except for making like five bucks at the handful of Texan theaters it was shown at. However, my first reaction to this devastating news was HOLD OUT FOR THE UKRAINIANS, JESSICA! Not all hope is lost!

And boy was I right! This shit opened #1 and made $253,008 at the box office its opening weekend. The Box Office Mojo tried to explain this miraculous windfall, saying, “The former Soviet nations have a sweet tooth for straight-up comedies. When these comedies have big name celebrities like Jessica Simpson’s, that’s all that’s needed to sell the movie. Russian and Ukrainian audiences have an even bigger urge for escapism than Americans. So, films like “Blonde Ambition” will gross more than “No Country for Old Men.”‘

Hot damn. The Ukrainian department of Tourism but be shitting itself right now. “Escape to the Ukraine! The land that nobody wants to live in!” Seriously, that really insults the Ukrainian I.Q..  At least compare “Blonde Ambition” to a movie that wasn’t Oscar-nominated to make it a fair comparison. Also, they should not advertise that they’ll buy anything or you know Paris Hilton is going to build herself a Polly Pocket palace up in there and sell some more perfume and a translated autobiography and they’ll regret every having announced their love of awful C-list movies.  Also, I’m no geography expert, but isn’t the Ukraine pretty damn close to Russia, aka the land that invented Vodka?!  Cross the border for some escapism, guys!  It’s what underage American kids do!

Try explaining the Democratic party’s primary delegate award system to foreigner and you’re in for a headache. Last night, after a party, and ostensibly wasted, I tried my best to explain to a German sleeping on my couch how Democratic state primaries award delegates proportionally, unlike the winner-take-all system of the Republican primary cycle. Forget an explanation of why we do it this way in the first place. Good thing he didn’t know about superdelegates, otherwise I would have been at a complete loss.

Truth be told, I didn’t know a thing about superdelegates until three weeks ago. Even worse, I worked in electoral politics before enrolling at Columbia. Now I like to throw talk of superdelegates into my electoral spiel, trying to sound like an expert, but it’s a nebulous addition to our arcane nomination process.

Since Super Tuesday, former first daughter, Chelsea Clinton, has been making calls to superdelegates in an effort to secure their support for her mom. Whoopi Goldberg notably switched her endorsement from Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton, while MSNBC’s David Shuster was suspended for saying he felt “Chelsea Clinton was being pimped out by her family in some sort of way.”

In today’s New York Times, Tad Devine, Democratic megawonk and former campaign strategist for Al Gore, describes the origin of the superdelegate system before laying out some of the pitfalls of allowing elected officials to sway the primary process before ordinary citizens are done voting.

If the superdelegates determine the party’s nominee before primary and caucus voters have rendered a clear verdict, Democrats risk losing the trust that we are building with voters today. The perception that the votes of ordinary people don’t count as much as those of the political insiders, who get to pick the nominee in some mythical back room, could hurt our party for decades to come.

Although it was meant to unite the Democratic party, the superdelegate system wreaks of cigar smoke and backroom politics, one of the reason why I can’t stand Hillary in the first place. Although the Obama campaign is also working hard to secure commitments from superdelegates, it once again feels like they are reacting to Hillary’s increasingly-desperate maneuvers to lock up the nomination by any available means.

I’m not a first-time voter, in fact, this will be my third Presidential, but I swore last time I would leave the country if Bush was re-elected. I’ll admit that I didn’t go as far as packing a bag, but it has taken nearly this long for my faith in America to be restored. The Obama Phenomenon not only represents a candidate, but the summation of the America I cherish; a country of ideals where the dreams of millions of immigrants have become a reality. After two questionable Presidential elections, people’s faith in our democracy is at an all time low, myself included. Millions of energized young voters are being brought into the process by the prospect of electing America’s first black or female president. If the Democratic candidate is chosen by superdelegate votes, this will confirm a falsehood believed by all young voters; their votes don’t matter. Devine says,

The damage would be amplified if African-Americans or women, two of the party’s key constituencies, feel that a candidate who represents their most fervent hopes and aspirations is deprived of a nomination rightfully earned by majority support from voters.

Obama may have a messy desk, but it’s no reason to usurp the nomination by stealth. Should the erosion of Hillary’s primary campaign happen slowly enough for her to secure the nomination outright, at least it will be a legitmate victory. I doubt she cares either way. Now that I’m well versed in superdelegate mendacity, I am free to explain to my foreign visitors why we have an electoral college.

[or, how much do you wish you were in fucking Paris right now? Commentariat foreign correspondent and philosophy major Greg Keilin, C '09, doesn't have to wish. But who knows--get those imaginations working, and reading him every weekend could be just like being there. Only cheaper!]

Had brunch this morning at one of my favorite restaurants here, Coffee Parisien. It is a mini-chain (there are three branches) that tries to bring the USA to Paris, but I love eating there because of how badly they do it. Though the menu does have milkshakes and bagels, it also has steak tartare. The place is always crammed with couples and young families, their kids better dressed than I will ever be, and there is an espresso machine behind the oak wood bar.

Even more amusingly, the few American touches that are effectively incorporated (Kennedy photos, concert posters, and pop art on the walls) only reinforce the perception of French disdain for the current state of our country. People here still love JFK, Andy Warhol, and Woodstock, but they hate George Bush and McDonalds.

Why do they feel this way? The France of today, I believe, identifies with the United State of the sixties. Its people sense that they are, as we were, at an historical crossroads. Europe is unifying, challenging their strong national identity; the global economy is evolving, straining their traditional socialist values; immigration is increasing, reviving dormant racial tension.

They also feel, as we did, that these difficulties must be engaged head-on. There has been constant dialogue in the press and in public; there have been numerous strikes and protests; and people have voted. In both rounds of the French presidential elections last year, voter turnout exceeded 80%. Though the United States has never reached that level, the 63% participation in 1960 was higher than in any subsequent year.

This last fact is one of the reasons for the recent decline in French respect for American culture. The French see in us now a failure to live up to the promise of the social and political movements they admire. They feel we are apathetic in the face of new challenges. Much more than any particular policy or practice, they resent our self-satisfied detachment from our own affairs and from those of the rest of the world.

Whether or not these accusations are true, they reveal a French self-confidence that borders on arrogance. They despise the United States for having failed where they believe they will succeed, and their high hopes for us only made our crime worse. Of course, it remains to be seen what the future will hold. If history repeats itself, the people of France may want to eat their words in fifty years; perhaps, sooner than that: their new President, after all, is considered “American.” In any case, only time will tell.

-GREG KEILIN