In 1981, Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President of the United States with George H.W. Bush as his Vice President. Since that time, not a single day has passed without a member of the Bush or Clinton families in the White House. Granted, only one Clinton has served as President, so it may not be fair to label the family a dynasty yet, but with the next presidential election still two years away, the general consensus seems to be that the Democratic nomination is Hillary's to lose.

That, in itself, is a valid case against Hillary Clinton for President. If she is elected, the Bush-Clinton dynasties will have controlled U.S. foreign and domestic policy for over three decades. Most dictators don't remain in power for that long (Saddam Hussein didn't).

At this point, Hillary is perceived by many as a manipulator, seeking power for power's sake. She's cautiously groomed her public image to appear electable. She backed a bill criminalizing flag burning, came out against violent video games, signed on to President Bush's missile defense plan, shifted her language on abortion, and backed the war in Iraq.

The "on the ground" reaction I have heard from many, particularly in the South, about Hillary is that she appears untrustworthy, lacking definite principles and willing to do anything and say anything to win an election. Which is understandable. Power corrupts, and not even Hillary is immune to its intoxication.

Enter Barack Obama, the anti-Hillary. Where Hillary gives the impression of manipulating the people to obtain power, Obama comes off as a reluctant hero being catapulted into power by the masses. I initially thought Obama should wait. Strategically, it seems a poor decision to make a run for the Presidency after only four years in the Senate. But he has stirred excitement and evoked comparisons to a young Bill Clinton or John Kennedy. He has charisma. He has charm. He's sharp as a tack and genuinely compassionate. He's bold yet humble.

But most importantly, his last name isn't Bush or Clinton.