Michael Barone gets it completly wrong...

Here's his Opinion
Newt Vs. Hillary
Pollster Scott Rasmussen reports that in a recent presidential pairing, Hillary Rodham Clinton would beat Newt Gingrich by a 50-to-43 percent margin. That sounds fairly plausible, although it's a little better showing for Gingrich than I would have expected. But take a look at the favorable/unfavorable ratings. Rasmussen's numbers have Clinton's fav/unfav at 50 and 48 percent and Gingrich's fav/unfav at 43 and 48 percent. You're tempted to think that Clinton and Gingrich both got the votes of every respondent who had favorable feelings toward her or him–and not a single vote more.
Of course, that's not quite the case, but it's pretty close. Note that these two politicians–both figures of huge national prominence in the Bill Clinton years–inspire unfavorable feelings in almost half the electorate. I wonder how many are unfavorable to them both. Clinton and Gingrich in different ways have considerable political strengths. But the nomination of either one may be seen as taking us back to the partisanship of the 1990s. Not where all that many of us want to go, I think.
Yes, I know that Clinton's fav/unfavs are better in some other polls and Gingrich's worse. But I think the point still stands.

Now here is why he is wrong. First of all poll numbers can be made to say what ever you want them to say, no matter what side your on. Let alone almost 2 years before an election. At this point in time all the polls are bullshit. What he misses is the big picture.

This is the match up that all of America wants to see and if we are being honest needs to have. Both candidates have their built in rabid followers and their rabid detractors. What they both have that the rest of the field does not is a persona of what they represent.

Hillary represents the true left, a socialist that in another era would have been called a commie.

Newt represents the true conservative right. A capitalist, straight speaking, good ole boy.

Both of their approaches are completly different. One will go out of her way to state a position without actually saying anything, making you feel that she is on the same page as what is really in your heart.

The other will tell you the things you don't really want to hear but you know what he is saying is the damn truth and it scares you that no one has had the balls to tell it straight out and plain.

As for Barones statement about partisanship is he blind or just in denial of the unretractable partisanship of the left. No 2 other candidates will draw the lines between right/left, liberal/conservative, or security/non-security better than these 2 candidates. That is what this country needs. We are at war the enemy is trying to kill us and is going to continue to try and kill us whichever direction we choose to go.

The debate has to be how are we going to confront the threat. Are we going to talk about it, sit down with our enemies and convince them that they are wrong for trying to kill us, and that if they just play nice ande tell us what they expect of us will give it to them and they can stop killing. Thats the lefts belief. Or Are we going to track down the ones that want to kill us and kill them, adapting the adage For every American you kill were are going to kill a 1000 of you. Thats the rights belief. That is the only debate that means anything for the next election.