Another Happy Halloween has come to an end. I can only hope that you ate enough candy to make yourself sick and that you sported something wild, outrageous or skimpy. But for two people, Halloween isn't over yet because they'll still be pretending next Tuesday to be someone they're not.
So now that you're all going to vote, I feel it's my civic duty to help you plow through the mud of the presidential candidates on this historic occasion.
The "choices" at the beginning of this year were a lot of interesting people who didn't have enough money or famous relatives even to be considered (because God forbid we should have a president who wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth). With the choices now, it's like choosing between a fraternity brother and a brown-noser.
Before I go on about this year's election, I think it's important to look at the gentlemen who carried this nation through its 200-plus years of democracy to help determine what type of leader we need for the present. Thomas Jefferson reminds us of the prominence of hypocrisy. The man who said "all men are created equal" was a slave owner.
It's too bad we can't go back in time. Maybe we could have taught Jefferson more about the meaning of equality, and who knows what politically incorrect conversation could've taken place between Sally Hemmings and Monica Lewinsky.
Moving on, we have good ol' Andrew Jackson, who spent his life fighting "those people" off "his" land. Surely the new Sacajawea dollar coin now in circulation will rectify Jackson's tragic actions, which led to the Trail of Tears.
Nixon got a big fat tap on the hand for tapping phones. But William Jefferson Clinton is the Mack Daddy of them all. Smiling and playing his saxophone into the White House, he told us, "If I could've inhaled, I would have."
Let's face it, we're one of the most desensitized nations in the world, and the Clinton scandal provided the news media with something to write about that people would actually read. It also provided drama better than "The Young and the Restless" with its stained dresses, recorded conversations and old fogies trying to oust our valiant love machine, Bill Clinton.
From these men, we've learned to be sly, lie if we have to, have sex with anyone but our spouse and infiltrate others' secret information. Because the next president will have to be something like a morph of a cartoon superhero and a VH1 fashion model, I'm just happy that the "contestants" are more preoccupied powdering their noses rather than repeating the political follies and tragedies of the past.
The October issue of Cosmopolitan asked 1,000 women who was more of a babe in college: Al Gore or George W. Bush. Bush won with 79.4 percent. Naturally, these are the crucial statistics, because Hollywood glamour is omnipotent.
Gore says he's for the environment. The important question to ask is "which one," because his family owns some $500,000 worth of stock in an oil company planning to drill on Colombian soil, the third most biodiverse region in the world. My bet is that Gore dressed up as a hippo for Halloween, uh, I mean "hippo-crit."
George W. Bush, who should've dressed up as the Joker, isn't much better with his intellectually empty glances and plans to plow up Alaska. (You know, it wouldn't be prudent to destroy the Earth.) But of course the only thing that really matters is maintaining prices on the 54 percent of our oil we import, even if it's at the stake of our national security.
But why make your choice based on insignificant things like character? (Sarcasm.) I'm making my choice on more random factors like how many times a candidate can use the word "Medicare" or which candidate can slur his opponent with the most humorous punch-line. (Sarcasm again.)
Before I wrap this up, I couldn't possibly go without giving a "subliminable" (Ralph Nader) message myself. We all know Nader isn't going to win, so why does this man evoke such controversy? Are they afraid he might say something important? He's on the ballot in 44 states. Because we live in Hee-Haw-ville, we aren't one of them.
I recently read an article stating that if Nader got 5 percent of the vote, the Green Party would get federal funding. Therefore, a vote for Nader is not a throwaway vote or an indirect vote for Bush. Only when people vote for the "loser" can the "loser" one day ever become a participant.
The truth is, I've almost decided who I'm voting for. Hmm . will I choose the person who invented the Internet and put it in a lockbox or the man who is rumored to have enjoyed fine powder on a mirror and wears cowboy boots?
The only reason I can see to choose the cowboy boots is that I hope to be in the top 1 percent of the wealthiest people in America, and I definitely want tax relief.
Who will you choose? The bottom line is you should choose the candidate for president whom "Saturday Night Live" makes fun of the best, because isn't having a sense of humor all that really matters? (Sarcasm yet again.)
Anne Marie Teague is a senior business administration major from Lumberton. Reach her at email@example.com.