Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, the center around Obama was over the fact that he was the first African-American nominee, who also happened to deliver rousing speeches time and time again?

Obama made better news than McCain. That's why he made the news more often.

And yes, of course the media is biased. That's what happens in a bi-partisan system. That's why you're either supposed to listen to both sides explain their points which MSNBC, my news of choice, did. They had, as far as I could tell, a fair balance between Republican and Democrat guests. True, the big anchors at MSNBC (Olbermann, Maddow, Gregory, and Matthews) are all admittedly Democrat, but they still give people the chance to speak their opinions (except for Olbermann, but I watch him for laughs more than for facts).

Alternatively, you could watch the biased anchors like Olbermann and decide for yourself if something's bullshit or not.

You act as though it's some mortal sin for an article to be biased. Except for the Associated Press, which holds to a standard of unbiased reporting more than any other publication, it's inevitable. The author puts himself into his article, including his opinions, and the editor uses the newspaper to push his agenda. Fair and honest reporting doesn't make money, sadly enough. I think there should be a massive non-profit news organization that uses its money to support fair and honest journalists in its employ. Until then, you have to think when you watch the news or you're going to end up swallowing someone else's ideaology.

EDIT:

By the way, the article in the Wash. Times about the Post's article was biased as well. It's the pot calling the kettle black here.