Ok i'll put it better. None of the social issues are going to change in the next 4 to 8 years.

Most people are still against gay marriage. Like 70+%... and most congressmen are two cowwardly to take one of the team anymore.

Voting for one guy against gay marriage isn't going to make it more likely to happen then voting for another guy against gay marriage.

Also... McCain is about as opposite of religious conservative as someone could get.

Obama is actually more religious.  Which is why there is talk he could still some of the Evangelist base.

Heck Obama wants to expand Bush's "Faith based funding" initiative.

Yeah, but it's not like gay marriage is the only such issue on the table.  Women's right to choose is a big one that one ticket is very much against, and the other not. 

You are aware that the politically sound thing to do with a running mate like this is to get all of the bad news out early before the convention..right?

The McCain Campaign has been pretty clear both on and off the record about the fact that they vetted her thoroughly and well before he made the pick (note the comments of this article and that even internet active GoP leaning nobodies were aware of Palin as a good choice in May). If I can find the article they actually explained the process a bit, they basically had 25 people working on her vetting proces.

And while the story that McCain didn't send a team to check the newpaper clippings archives in Alaska Libraries is true, it is only true because the rumor that you can't access that information online is false. They actually did get paper copies from quite a few places anyways by request, the only place they didn't was her home town because they felt they couldn't keep it under wraps if they had.

edit:

"First, a team of some 25 people working under Culvahouse culled information from public sources for Palin and other prospective candidates without their knowledge. For all, news reports, speeches, financial and tax return disclosures, litigation, investigations, ethical charges, marriages and divorces were reviewed."

Source

McCain vetted Palin. In advance. Thoroughly. Hopefully we can get over the hump on this rumor sooner rather than later..its becoming somewhat of a routine honestly =P

Another way to look at things is that the 25% of people who are extreme-Democrats are going to demonize Sarah Palin regardless of who she is (if Hillary Clinton was John McCain's running mate she would now be the worst candidate in the world), and 25% of people who are extreme-Republicans are going to support Sarah Palin regardless of who she is.

This means that there are (approximately) 50% of the population who will be somewhat swayed by who she actually is ...

Inspite of what many of the extreme-Democrats may think, the sleazy and hypocritical nature of the attacks (as well as the impending question "Would this be an issue if she was a man?") may actually gain her a lot of simpathy from a lot of voters who may end up more likely to vote for her because of her flaws.

Seems to be that you're the run of the mill Libertarian. 

I really dont mean to be an ass, but how is it that you think Republicans want to stay out of everyone's lives?  Republicans want to teach Christianity (Creationism, absitence only) in school, want to tell consenting adults who they can and cannot marry, and so forth.  The only thing I can think of that the Democrats would be intruding upon is gun laws, though there are other things they are together with conservatives on, such as entertainment ratings.

Though I'd say it's more important your president had experience rather than your VP!

Some of us view it this way:

- The religious whackos in the Republican party are mostly benign. They squawk and holler a lot, but they rarely accomplish anything. The rest of the country is too adamantly against them to allow them to succeed.

- The Democrats are always able to spend more money while in power. No one seems to notice until after the fact. Their zealots, while still mostly powerless, manage to slip in expenditures here and there and balloon the size of government over time.

Which is why you see so many Libertarians side with the GOP, despite their intense hatred of the Religious Right. While the RR is annoying, they're more like a gnat with a bullhorn. Loud, obnoxious, but still pretty harmless. The Democrats do a good job of keeping the crazy bastards in check while (until Bush and other spend-happy Republicans came along) the GOP keeps spending in line.

McCain vetted Palin. In advance. Thoroughly. Hopefully we can get over the hump on this rumor sooner rather than later..its becoming somewhat of a routine honestly =P

One Republican strategist with close ties to the campaign described the candidate's closest supporters as "keeping their fingers crossed" in hopes that additional information does not force McCain to revisit the decision. According to this Republican, who would discuss internal campaign strategizing only on condition of anonymity, the McCain team used little more than a Google Internet search as part of a rushed effort to review Palin's potential pitfalls. Just over a week ago, Palin was not on McCain's short list of potential running mates, the Republican said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-palinassess2-2008sep02,0,3826591.story

One thing neither party does very well is justify and explain spending. To me, Republicans tend to marginalize any spending other than defense spending.  Yet tax and spend anyway (hello Mr. Bush 1 and 2).  Democrats slip in small programs because they get shut down by the Republicans on anything big, and then get demonized for this.

And yet many of these programs are not about increasing the size of our government (sometimes that is a side effect yes), but about improving our infrastructure.  Ensuring our work force is healthy and happy and can actually get to work (roads and public transportation).  Encuring our upcoming work force, our children, are educated and have the means to take advantage of the opportunities before them. 

A republican would look at a young girl, and then slash any spending on access to birth control for her.   When she becomes a young unwed mother, they slash spending on programs that would give her any kind of support to raise her child and support that child's health.  When that child is in a public school system, they slash spending on a program that would give that child the tools it needs in today's age to succeed.  When that child is a high school dropout, a young girl herself, she repeats the same mistakes her mother made.

The way I see it?  A lot of democratic spending is to provide solutions for problems created by Republicans.  Now, I know I'm overemphasizing that and myself marginalizing a lot of business practices that I think the Dems are wrong on, but I think it's a fair point.

Not all government spending is bad.  It's just like a business investing during a downturn instead of cutting expenses - when things look up again, they're in a much better position to take advantage of the market than the companies that wildly cut spending and jobs just to please their shareholders.