I Expect a "Palin Giving Some Female Democrats 'Heartburn'" Article Any Second

CNN, always the bastion of newsworthy journalism, currently has an article occupying the prime spot on their home page entitled "Obama Giving Black Republicans 'Heartburn'".  First, let me take a crack at the implicit liberal media bias therein, before I get the meat of the explicit liberal media bias: not even 24 hours after Sarah Palin made her historic and groundbreaking debut at the RNC, wherein she proved that she is truly a force to be reckoned with, an article about -- well, anything else occupying that front page would be surprising, even in our fast-paced news cycle.  That it is nothing more than a pure "fluff" piece with no actual news inside of it is very telling (unless you consider a quote from Armstrong "Pay-for-Play" Williams about how he is considering "making history" news); that it is an article none-too-subtly portraying a supposed favorable shift for Barack Obama (black Republicans voting along racial lines rather than ideological ones) should be surprising, but is not at all, given what we all know about the MSM's predilections. 

As for the article itself:  why can we not live in a world where the phenomenon of people voting along racial lines rather than ideological lines is treated with revulsion and contempt rather than... well, if it were only idle curiosity, that would be one thing, but one gleans a sense of outright glee from the author of CNN's article on the matter.  Seriously, imagine just for a second if the Republicans were the team fielding a black man for the presidential nomination; can you possibly believe that CNN would have ever run a similar article?  I for one cannot. 

And just how in the heck is Obama the "post racial candidate" if people are voting for him explicitly on account of his skin color?  If this truly is a visible phenomenon (and considering that blacks poll in his favor upwards of 90%, it must be), it can't be the case that Obama's election will allow us any chance to "move on" from our checkered racial past.  If one were to limit this "post-raciality" to white folk only, well, that'd just be patronizing.  What, white people need to move beyond race, but black people don't? Sounds like a sure-fire way to effect racial reconciliation to me, doesn't it?

This is devolving into a rant, so I'll tie things up now.  I'm not the first one (even at this blog) to opine that both the first female and first racial minority presidents will be Republicans.  This is precisely because of the phenomenon described by this article:  Democrats cannot and will not move beyond race (and as they have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt with their treatment of the Hildebeast and Sarah Palin, they obstinately refuse to move beyond sexism either, using it rather as a useful wedge for duped feminists).  Republicans, particularly modern ones, on the other hand, really do look at a person's qualifications over skin color or the great hoohoodilly-versus-chacha question.  The fervor over Palin, and, for example, up-and-coming Bobby Jindal, make this abundantly clear.