Exclusive

Dina Lohan on Latest Slam: Glee Writers "Need to Be Nice"

Another Super Bowl Sunday, another shot at the Lohan family

By Natalie Finn, Katie Rhames Feb 07, 2011 11:45 PMTags
Glee, Katie Couric, Jane Lynch, Dina LohanMichael Yarish/FOX; Theo Wargo/WireImage.com

Super Bowl Sunday never seems to go well for the Lohan family.

A year after a perceived slight from the E-Trade baby, the much hyped post-Super Bowl episode of Glee included an actual dig at Dina Lohan. After a cheerleading stunt gone wrong, Katie Couric informs Jane Lynch's Sue Sylvester that she beat out Lindsay Lohan's mom and her dog, "Sparky Lohan," to make the list of the world's biggest losers.

Well, she didn't just beat Dina. She also beat out Tiger Woods, the economy and 9 percent unemployment.

Considering this isn't the first time Glee has winked at the zeitgeist with a Lohan insult, did mama Dina's claws really come out this time?

"The show has targeted everyone from gays to lesbians, Asians, disabled and each other...several groups are going after the producers including mothers' groups," Dina exclusively tells E! News.

"It's a shame as the dance numbers are amazing, but the writers need to be nice and more creative as opposed to being hurtful. They are sending the wrong message to the youth that are watching. Oh, and I must get a 'fifth' dog named Sparky...as far as Katie Couric is concerned, she has a short memory when the tabloids were trashing her a few years ago—and she's a mom!"

Well, trashing someone for not pulling the CBS Evening News out of third place isn't exactly the same thing, but...OK.

Lindsay was, according to her mom, really upset after Gwyneth Paltrow, playing a substitute Spanish teacher on Glee, taught her class phrases that meant "Lindsay Lohan is totally crazy, right?" and "How many times has Lindsay Lohan been to rehab?"

Last year, E-Trade's Super Bowl commercial featured a milkaholic baby named Lindsay, prompting the starlet (whose Cannes-to-court-to-Betty-Ford legal troubles were still ahead of her) to sue for $100 million, picking such a high figure presumably to make a point.