Maverick or Change?

For some time now, we've been barraged with campaign commercials, lawn signs, and speeches to both inform people of a candidate's views, and more importantly, convince the public to vote a certain way. The Republicans say Senator Obama is all talk and no play. Democrats claim that McCain would simply continue unpopular Republican policies, such as the War in Iraq. Republicans have deemed Obama to be "Dr. No." To Democrats, McCain is nothing but another Bush. While insults have been flung from both sides of the campaigning, very little has been done to resolve this unquestionably significant and controversial issue.
While the major issues in this election are undoubtedly the economy and a strong energy policy, the smaller and more common issues may end up playing a much bigger role in determining the outcome of the 2008 presidential election. Unlike most elections, the candidates are strikingly similar in many areas. Both tentatively support the bailout, and agree that alternative energy is necessary. Where they differ, however, is their approaches to certain solutions. With each abiding by their party's platform, Obama believes in a much greater degree of government involvement than McCain. In terms of specifics, Obama seems to be more of the "New Deal" type president, while McCain seems to support Hoover and Reagan's "trickle-down" methods. At a first glance, this should make the election easy to decide. The New Deal worked, and the trickle down effect didn't, right? While I'm a staunch proponent of FDR and his presidential terms, I am quite anti-New Deal. I believe that both the New Deal and the trickle down effect weren't given enough time. A few more months and the massive government spending require for the New Deal would have caused the economy to collapse all over again. A few more months and the trickle down effect may have begun to help better the economy. FDR was lucky that the war came when it did, and Hoover and Reagan were unlucky in their small opportunity to prove their methods. My point is, the country doesn't need a larger deficit than it already has. Personally, I am economically conservative.
For energy issues, both McCain and Obama seem to support some sort of cap and trade system. However, their methodologies differ quite a bit. McCain has been demanding for offshore drilling, while Obama feels as though we should make a transition to renewable energy now. Additionally, McCain's cap and trade program favors big businesses who already emit a lot of gas, while Obama provides equal opportunity to all businesses. Energy wise, I have to agree with Obama.
So how WILL the election be decided? While professing different methods, both candidates agree that change is necessary. It almost seems as though the election itself is unnecessary, for either way, we will be rid of the Bush administration. So then WHAT will voters be voting for?
Based on simply the economy and energy, I might be tempted to break away from my 16 year allegiance to the Democrat Party and vote for Grandpa John. However to me, the difference isn't that big. For me, it comes down to seemingly minor issues, such as the Supreme Court. The next president will have the opportunity of appointing up to possibly four new Justices, and a McCain presidency guarantees conservative appointments, and thus a handful of pro-life, anti-homosexual men. For me, this is enough to sway my vote when the candidates are so similar in other ways. There's always a chance that Obama will enact a Great Society type of reform, instead of the New Deal. There isn't a chance, however, that abortion and homosexual rights will prevail in a McCain appointed Supreme Court. While I am not old enough to vote myself, I feel as though these sort of "smaller" issues may end up being what decide the election.