The battle lines in the Democratic primary have been drawn heavily upon racial and gender lines, with Hillary Clinton favored among Hispanics and women and Barack Obama among blacks and men. The behavior of demographic interest groups in this election cycle has been invested with a self-conscious dimension, in which the choice of candidate is affected not only by their stances.

His race and her sex have entered into the equation.

And so begins the identity politicking. The New York chapter of the feminist interest group NOW (National Organization for Women) has called Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama “the ultimate betrayal” of women’s rights, claiming that a true women’s rights supporter would have endorsed Clinton. To its credit, the national organization of NOW, which also backs Clinton, immediately and explicitly repudiated this simple-minded view.

Nevertheless, it’s clear that some feminists seriously believe that supporters of women’s rights are obligated to support Clinton because she is a woman, although they also cite Obama’s lack of firmness on their pet issues.

Yes, Obama’s charisma-driven campaign is definitive proof that hot air rises. Yes, Clinton clearly has a leg up on him in terms of White House experience (insert your favorite Monica joke here), but Kennedy has every right to endorse whomever he thinks will advance his views best, and he should not be labeled a traitor for daring to endorse the male candidate.

Obama has his own “betrayal” issues. Reports in the press emerged in the run-up to Super Tuesday showing that some blacks claimed to still be on the fence because Obama is half-white and has relatively fair skin as a result.

The senator’s wife, Michelle Obama, has increased her prominence in her husband’s campaign in part because it reassures potential supporters.

All of this claptrap about demographic solidarity is astoundingly simple-minded, even atavistic, and underscores the banal senselessness of identity politics.

This “vote your identity” paradigm advanced by some interest groups is an insult to the intelligence of women and blacks at large, and rests on the perpetual myth that each of these demographically demarcated groups constitutes some kind of monolithic horde, all of whose members share the same political attitudes. Even worse, it’s having a substantive effect of unprecedented magnitude on the behavior of the candidates.

We are, of course, naturally inclined to feel more positively with those who share certain traits in common with us — sex and race included. But a key part of becoming a civilized human is to overcome such stupid tendencies, and to recognize that such characteristics have negligible relationship to objective merit.

People ought to vote on the issue stances, the promises, the credibility, the character, the past achievements, even the campaigning tone of the candidates — anything but the candidate’s demographic attributes.

There will always be feminists, chauvinists, black supremacists, white supremacists and other rabble-rousers and bigots claiming one demographic trait is better than the other. The rest of us must have the resolve to ignore such trivialities, and to judge candidates based on substantive criteria — even if it means voting for the white guy again.

Still, it doesn’t hurt to have women in high places. And although the Republican primary race is essentially over, there is still time for the conservative movement to put its collective better half forward. The first woman on a winning presidential ticket doesn’t have to be a liberal Democrat.

With that in mind, here’s a possibility to mull over: Sarah Palin (the Republican governor of Alaska) for vice president?

[Reach columnist Russ Wung at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.]