This week, as many of us are preparing to go to Denver for the Democratic National Convention, Slate magazine decided to publish one of the more misogynistic pieces of journalism related to Senator Clinton's supporters - not Senator Clinton - that I have yet to read. Offered up by Senior Editor Dahlia Lithwick, this piece is entitled "The Madwoman in the Blogosphere: The disturbing Rise of the 'Hillary Harridan.'" If you find the title inviting, you can read the story here.

Before I go any further, time to explain what misogyny is: fear and hatred of women. Ms. Lithwick's headline and column certainly display both. And yes, women can be misogynists too.

Ordinarily I would ignore this piece of writing. But as more and more questions arise about whether Senator Obama is in fact a progressive, is in fact interested in representing the voices and interests of all who stand against misogyny, I am drawing attention to it because Senator Obama ought to be speaking out against this sort of characterization of Democratic voters who simply support a different candidate and seem to be drawing fire from a bigot like Dahlia Lithwick because these voters are women.

There was another period in American politics when hatred and bigotry were commonplace in the press. During the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s as people fought for the civil rights of African-Americans, newspapers, especially in Mississippi, regularly published news items and editorials that displayed true racism: hatred and fear of African-Americans because of the color of their skin. So their is nothing new about the press being party to vile attitudes. The question is, how do would-be political leaders, especially those who claim to be progressive, respond? Do they stand idly by? Or do they speak out and say, that while the First Amendment guarantees absolute grant people the right to express these attitudes, they are, nevertheless, reprehensible and should be resisted.

Here are some headlines and quotations from the Jim Crow era, from newspapers that at the time were regarded as at least as reputable as Slate is today. [All quotations come from the excellent and comprehensive reference book, In a Madhouse's Din: Civil Rights Coverage by Mississippi's Daily Press, 1948-1968]

For example, in the 1940s as Harry S. Truman proposed anti-lynching legislation, The Laurel Mississippi Leader newspaper columnist Ms. Gibbons wrote: "The Leader is now and forever opposed to lynching. But the the anti-lynch law is aimed at the South and 'this is not fair'"

Another Mississippi journalisms wrote, "Anti-lynch, anti-poll tax, and anti-segregation are all aimed at negro votes and the death of white supremacy..These measures do not better the condition of the negro. They place them in in greater jepardy for they will certainly inflame and alienate the very people who for decades have been the negroes' best friend." Another newspaper published an editorial, "For Fight-We Must!," railing against anti-lynch and anti-poll tax laws.

I could reprint more disgusting examples, but my point would remain the same. A leader like Harry Truman made it clear that people who wrote with hatred and fear about African-Americans were not people whose ideas he respected and he repeatedly introduced legislation opposing this sort of bigotry.

I know that Senator Clinton is paying attention to misogyny and to women's rights. I wonder if Senator Obama is. One way he could make it clear is by specifically addressing somebody who would call voters "harridans" simply for supporting a candidate they prefer. "Harridan", by the way, is an epithet along the lines of certain racial ones that I for one will not use.