There is an epic clip of a right wing radio dude defending Bush's statements and getting taken to school by none other than Matthews. Guy couldn't explain to Chris what Chamberlin (sp?) did in 1938 - kept saying "he's an appeaser! he's an appeaser!"
Isn't the point of these diaries (and having a comment section) so that we can have civil debate over the substance contained within? We can quibble whether this deserves its own diary or should be in a comment, but it seems like a reasonable issue to debate and not some call for censorship.
And, to be frank, "if you don't like it don't read it" seems pretty contrary to all that is blog.
I'm not sure you read his diary - he didn't ask for her to be banned, censored, or any of the sort. He asked that she reconsider what she's saying based on the substance of what she was saying. He focused particularly on the NARAL issue.
And just to clear the air before it begins, I'm not saying Clinton supporters are inherently racist or anything like that. I'm just kind of astounded by the argument that race is not playing a factor in this primary.