Probably the most fundamental part of a person's identity is their own name. It gives people something to call you other than "you there" and it can tell something about you, like your ethnic background, or most obviously, gender. Your name says a lot actually. A good name will help you along, while a bad name can hurt you.

Don't think so? How many of those poor children of hippies named Rainbow or Sunshine are heading up Fortune 500 companies or leading their field in anything?

This question actually got me to thinking about our upcoming election. Not only does the president need to be competent (hopefully) but he also has to have a good name. President (insert name) has to roll off the tongue and sum up the leader of the free world.

Most of our past presidents have had very straightforward names. About as ethnic as it got were Eisenhower and Roosevelt, whose names still projected power well. Let's take a look at how today's candidates stack up in the name game.

Hillary Clinton. Well this one is easy. We've already had a President Clinton so of course it sounds good. In fact, President Clinton reminds most of us of growing up in the 90s—the good ol' days. So as far as names go, this one's tried and true. We can only hope if she gets elected that Jeb Bush will run for president eventually so we can have just two families running the country for more than twenty-five years. It seems very democratic.

Barack Obama is a tough one to call. Obviously it's very memorable but perhaps a bit too foreign sounding for some of the more rural folk. President Obama doesn't sound too bad though, even for those idiots who play the "Obama, Osama" game. As a friend of mine once said, "if Gurbanguly Berdimuhammedov can be president of Turkmenistan, why can't Barack Obama be president of the United States?" Obama gets points for the memorable nature of his name.

John Edwards is about as standard of a name as someone can have. It really sums up all the dynamism of another white, Protestant, Southern lawyer running for president. Even despite that, it works and would be an acceptable, if not a little boring name.

Rudy Giuliani would be an interesting case. Giuliani actually sounds more ethnic than Obama and he would be the first Italian- American president. Based on that alone, it might be a difficult sell just because we've never had one before. Some people might think "Don" would go better before it than president.

Mitt Romney would follow an age-old tradition of presidents with standard last names and not-so-good first names like Grover Cleveland or Rutherford B. Hayes. While Romney doesn't sound too bad, Mitt is just idiotic and is actually his middle name. His first name is Willard. Not really much of an improvement.

Last but certainly not least is the crown jewel of presidential candidate names: Mike Huckabee. Where do I begin? First of all, any time I hear the name I immediately think of the less than memorable movie "I Heart Huckabees," which I only remember because of its bizarre title. Is America ready for a President Huckabee? I, for one, am not.

I don't want to live in a country where our leader has a name so terrible that other world leaders snicker at it because of its stupidity. I don't care if the man was the Second Coming, I still wouldn't vote for him. In fact, if he was the Second Coming I would become an atheist convinced that God had lost it if Jesus came back under the name Huckabee.

There you have it. So now if you choose to base your vote solely on someone's name, you have a guide. It might be a good idea to look at other aspects as well.