i'd like to start off and say that Palin's inexperience is indeed important. the vp is more than just a sidekick. more, in fact, than the tie-breaker in the senate. the vp just might be president one day, and for an old guy like mccain, that possibility is all the more likely.
I would like to suggest that politics gives a great deal of weight to both "hard" and "soft" people. even people who disagreed with president bush acknowledged that he was firm in his positions and therefore they voted for him. this is an example where "hard" worked out for them. prior to this election, I would have argued that mccain was "soft" as you put it, because he was willing to compromise. those positions seem to be downplayed, but he has historically changed his positions and, I would argue, that this is exactly what a good politician should do. being firm in a position that is wrong never worked for anyone. Take for example, how the republicans pointed to john kerry as he "voted against the war after he voted against it." what they don't tell you is that the senate voted for the "war" many many times. First in the initial authorization, then every subsequent year for appropriations. he did indeed vote for the initial authorization and then eventually decided that not to vote for the appropriations. You might call this a flip flop. But when new information comes to light, it is important for a responsible leader to consider this new information when making a decision. otherwise, new information would be of no value and we would still teach our children that the earth is the center of the universe.
more to the point, what you are talking about is called political pandering. both candidates are doing it. I think your example of the baseball teams is the textbook definition of pandering. As much as I wish it weren't so, this is part of modern U.S. politics. It is a brash and distasteful attempt to grab a few voter who are still on the fence and all they want to hear is "hey, he likes my team". I would suggest that you ignore all of this stuff. 90% of what both candidates say will never make it on their agenda in the white house anyway. Instead, look at more substantive information. They are both senators, look at their voting records. (http://thomas.loc.gov/ ) will give you details regarding bills and how each of them voted. Turn on C-span and listen to their speeches on the floor of the senate. Most congress people are much more candid in the halls of Congress (probably because they think most Americans aren't watching.) You'll have to go to youtube to see their floor debates since both candidates are too busy on the campaign trail to bother going to work. but it is worth the effort.
Look at their education. Read their books (both have written books) both have been interviewed by the press (each, i might add, have been interviewed by a media outlet that is biased against them) see how they managed the interview. Look at their endorsements. Not just WHO endorsed them, but WHY. Both have extensive public service careers and it should not be difficult to figure out which one you agree with more. Make up your own mind and ignore most of what is said here (unless of course it resonates with you.)
My final note is very serious. you can decide how to use your vote based on who is "stronger" or "softer". You can decide who to vote for based on who is black or white. you can even decide who to vote for based on who looks better on tv. But all of these things are distractions from the real issues. who makes the most sense and who had demonstrated that they can turn that into a successful policy. I think, ultimately that this was your point, so i probably didn't answer your question. but i hope you have some food for thought.