CPAC, where I spent several days last week, has traditionally been considered a necessary stopping point for presidential candidates.  However, Sarah Palin boycotted CPAC in favor of the Tea Party Convention. Will this hurt her chances of becoming the republican candidate in 2012, if she so desires?

U.S.A. Today, the most widely circulated paper in America, has cited a Gallup Poll that indicates that the GOP Primary may come down to a battle between former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney - and I would agree:

"In a Gallup Poll this month, Romney led the field when Republicans and independents who lean to the GOP were asked to name "off the top of your head" which Republican they would like to see as the party's 2012 nominee. Fourteen percent mentioned Romney and 11% Palin, the only Republicans to draw double-digit support. Forty-two percent didn't name a preference.

The survey sample was small, and most Americans admittedly aren't focused on a hypothetical contest two years away. Still, the poll, taken Feb. 1-3, found clear contours to their support. The survey of 490 Republicans and GOP leaners has a margin of error of +/—5 percentage points.

Palin had a small edge among Republicans and Romney a big one among independents who tend to vote Republican. They drew similar support among conservatives, but he was much stronger among moderates.

Romney fared best among seniors but was not named by a single respondent under 30; among those younger voters, 2008 Republican nominee John McCain was first and Palin second.

Romney fared best in the East and West; Palin in the South. His strongest showing was among voters with a college degree or more; hers was among those with only some college education or less. He led among those with an annual income of $75,000 or more; she led among those with income of $30,000 or less. She had a slight edge among the most frequent churchgoers.

So a contest between the two might well be something of a class war. It could pit younger, more socially conservative voters for Palin against more traditional Republican voters — older, wealthier and economic conservatives — for Romney."

Sound familiar?  It should.  Much of the same rhetoric was used to describe Democrat establishment Hillary Clinton's early lead against an insurgent candidate more popular with younger, more ideological, and less elite voters -- Barack Obama. Here is my take on what the other candidates were trying to do:

• Mitt Romney set the tone of CPAC by steering away from any controversial issues such as abortion, foreign policy initiatives, gay marriage, bipartisanship, and immigration.  Instead, Romney stuck to bread and butter economic concerns, while ignoring his biggest Achilles heel - signing Romneycare, which is almost identical to Obamacare, into law in Massachusetts.  All the other Presidential contenders also discussed their fiscal conservative beliefs, but spent time staking out positions on issues that Romney did not address.

• Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenti set himself up as a social conservative, putting heavy emphasis on his Christian worldview.

• Former Senator Rick Santorum pushed for an aggressive foreign policy initiative against Iran.

• Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich focused on bipartisanship and effective legislating.

• Chairman of the House Republican Conference Mike Pence addressed a great spectrum of conservative concerns from a foreign policy commitment to Israel to aggressive opposition to abortion and gay marriage.

Will any of the above matter come 2012 or did Sarah Palin set a new precedent that will end the era of CPAC dominance?  Only time will tell.