Two out of 10 Democrats who voted in the West Virginia primary said race was a factor in deciding between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

That’s two too many.

While it’s not surprising that voters in both parties are clinging to old biases against women and minorities, Hillary’s gender and Obama’s race have absolutely zero bearing on what kinds of president either would make.

And while the media seems to have become obsessed with race, in particular, our country faces far larger problems — the economy, energy, terrorism, the war in Iraq, the environment, climate change, crumbling bridges, health care, education.

The solutions a candidate proposes to these threats to the homeland are far more significant than sex or skin color.

As a country, we should move beyond race and gender prejudices or else we risk letting them blind us to the candidacy of man or woman who could become a great leader. No one would argue that among the 40-odd white males who have been president, there have been some utter failures.

Race or gender inevitably bring up the question of whether age is a factor in a candidate’s ability to be president. We would say it is — John McCain is 71, but what kind of 71 is he? What kind of 60 is Hillary Clinton and what kind of 46 is Barack Obama?

Will they bring fresh thinking to the White House or rely on tired ideas that have failed to solve the world’s problems?

Will they move the nation into the future or keep it shackled to the problems of the past?

Whether age, race and gender play roles on Election Day depends on who turns out to vote. A candidate like Barack Obama may just inspire minorities and the young people of America to cast ballots, and perhaps they will make a statement about what our nation’s biggest concerns are headed into the future.