Palin has come out throwing punches at the Republican National Convention, but do they show us anything other than the fact that she's a "hockey mom"? That's the question posed by CNN.

Let's take a look at some of the stuff that Palin said and also at some of the stuff that others are saying about her.

When asked about the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull, Palin replied "lipstick". This is a rather cheeky answer, but she forgot something that's very important: brains.

Palin chastised Obama by saying that "This is a man who can give an entire speech on the wars America is fighting and never use the word 'victory' except when he's talking about his own campaign". If we just look at this statement, Palin seems like a McCain clone, but McCain has been in government for more than 3 decades and Palin has been Alaska's governor for a shorter stint than Obama has been on Capitol Hill. So, we've raised this issue before and we must ask this question again: does Palin really understand why McCain is saying what he is saying or is she simply 'jumping on the bandwagon'?

Palin also slammed Obama for "saying one thing in Scranton and another in San Francisco", undoubtedly referring to Obama's lopsided losses in Pennsylvania and California which leads us to this question: if Palin had been on McCain's ticket at the beginning of the primaries and caucuses, would McCain have won? Most likely not. She probably also is unaware that the California primary came way before the Pennsylvania primary and in between California and Pennsylvania, Obama won 11 states in a row.

As far as McCain is concerned, Palin praised him as "a true profile in courage", adding that "In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those like John McCain who use their careers to promote change". However, as McCain has been on Capitol HIll for more than 3 decades, he doesn't represent change. Sarah Palin, having been Alaska's governor only since 2006, does represent change. Does this mean that PALIN should be president?

Palin also made it as if Obama and Biden want to increase the federal government's role: "What exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet. The answer is to make government bigger and take more of your money".

Palin also made a reference to her role as a small-town mayor, which was an effort to laugh off Obama's "experience: "I guess (that) a small town mayor is sort of a 'community organizer', except that (as a small town mayor), you have actual responsibilities". Here's yet another Palin gaffe. A community organizer certainly has responsibilities. They need to have the respect and admiration from their supporters in order to get things done!

So, what else does Palin (aka. "Sarah Barracuda") have to say for herself? "I love those hockey moms" and "I accept the challenge of a tough fight", but the question remains: can she win or even handle the heat?

Delegates seem to have a positive impression of Palin.

According to Kansas state senator Karin Brownlee, "I think (that) Sarah Palin can do a one-two punch better than Muhammed Ali and I think (that) she delivered it square on the opponents' face. I think that she has energized the Republican Party like we haven't seen in a long time".

Jose Rodriquez-Suarez simply remarked that "It was the best speech (that) I've ever heard".

Former McCain rivals also rallied behind the McCain/Palin ticket. Former New York Rudy Giuliani got the crowd fired up by ripping Obama for being just "a celebrity senator", without leadership experience or capability, adding that "He's never had to lead people in crisis. This is not a personal attack, it's a statement of fact. Barack Obama has never led anything. Nothing. Nada. The choice in this election comes down to substance over style. John McCain has been tested. Barack Obama has not. Tough times require strong leadership and this is no time for on-the-job training". Giuliani must be losing his mind too. A factual statement can also be an attack, especially when someone's name is thrown around. The only "statements of fact" that aren't attacks are factual, declarative statements like "Today is Friday in Hong Kong" which is true, no one can argue with it and it's not taking a cheap shot at anyone (i.e. it's not using someone's name).

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee spiced things up further by ridiculing Obama's European country as if to suggest that Obama is looking toward Europe for solutions to American problems when these problems can be fixed in the USA and taking a shot at "elite media": "Barack Obama's excellent adventure to Europe for change took his campaign to hundreds of thousands of people who don't even vote or pay taxes here. The fact is, most Americans don't want more government; they want a lot less", adding that McCain is "a man with the character and stubborn kind of integrity that I want in a president". Huckabee also sarcastically commended the media for negative attacks on the McCain-Palin ticket that seems to have unified Republicans: "The reporting of the past few days has been tackier than a Madonna concert".. Hm. So, according to Republicans, what does America need? A strong leader as Giuliani suggests or Huckabee's idea of less governance? Also, where did the idea of "country first, party second and me last" go?

Former Massachussetts Governor slammed "liberal Washington", vouching that McCain is a "prescription for every American who wants change in Washington". In addition, he requested a "Weedwhacker" to attack excessive regulation and excessive government spending and to lower taxes, Romney's sales pitch for McCain and Palin: "Throw out the big-government liberals and elect John McCain. We need change, all right, change from a liberal Washington back into a conservative Washington. Here's another false assumption. McCain has been on Capitol Hill since 1973. 30 years in Washington doesn't spell "change". It spells "the same (old) policies". Also, Republicans in power, whether in the White House or on Capitol Hill, doesn't represent change because the Republicans have had control of either the White House or Capitol Hill (or both in some years) since 1994. So, another Republican either in the White House or on Capitol Hill doesn't represent change. Neither does a Democratic president and a Republican Congress or vice versa (we've had that quite a few times). A Democrat in the White House and Democrats on Capitol Hill is the only true definition of change, but this is exceedingly unlikely.

Bush aide Matthew Scully wrote Palin's speech.

So, how did McCain and Palin's opposite numbers (i.e. the Democrats) respond? According to democratic vice-president designate Joe Biden, "I didn't hear the phrase 'middle class'. I didn't hear a single word about health care. I didn't hear a single word about helping people get to college. They don't have a single answer (for) how to dig us out of the hole (that) we've dug ourselves into over the past eight years".

So, there we have it. The stage is set with the Democrats fielding an inexperienced presidential candidate (Obama) along with a running mate who surely can be labelled as a "Washington insider" while on the Republican side, the presidential hopeful is very experienced while the vice-president designate is even more junior than Obama, perhaps throwing the "experience" argument out the window. This should shape up to be an election for the ages.