BLOG VIEW  |  HEADLINE VIEW
SUBMIT NEWS  |  RSS FEED  |  SEARCH

Middle Aged Lady Rage

THURSDAY MAY 22 2008 6:00 AM

Submitted by FearTheReaper. Edited By erin_broadley.

TAGS: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Democratic Primary

Middle-aged women are pissed. Their great hope is going down in flames and losing to a black man, which is causing them to lose their minds. They are popping up on websites, in news interviews and on radio shows. Many of them say the same thing; they won’t vote for Barack Obama. I think their unofficial spokeswoman is Geraldine Ferraro, who this week told the New York Times she might not vote for Obama if he were the nominee.


“I think Obama was terribly sexist,” she said.


Uh. Wait. What the fuck? Ferrero made one of the most racist comments during this primary, and now she is…Holy Fucking Shit, what is wrong with these people? Seriously, does she ever say anything that is not mind-bogglingly retarded? Nope. Not as of yesterday, anyway.


All the surrogates that they had out there, from the black journalists — you know, have you read Bob Herbert recently in the past six months? There wasn't one column that had anything decent to say about Hillary.


Uh, yeah. It was the “black journalists” fault that Hillary ran the worst campaign since Rudy Giuliani. Why did we ever teach those Negroes to write? By the way, Gerry, have you watched Hillary in the last six months? There wasn’t anything decent to say, period.

Mass delusion seems to have set upon this country’s almost-old ladies. They are now blaming Obama for the media’s sexist attacks against Hillary – while at the same time completely ignoring the Clinton’s heinous and repeated racist attacks on Obama.


Nancy Wait, 55, a social worker in Columbia City, Ind., said Mr. Obama was far less qualified than Mrs. Clinton and described as condescending his recent assurances that Mrs. Clinton should stay in the race as long as she liked. Ms. Wait said she would “absolutely, positively not” vote for him come fall.


Oh, so he should have told her to get out? Hey, He Can’t Win Sally, shut the fuck up. Is Obama supposed to just not answer a question that is asked 100 times a day? Should he have made an “I’m locking my mouth and throwing away the key” move? Sorry what you expected to happen didn’t happen. Welcome to grown-up land. You know how many times my favorite candidate has become president in my lifetime? Zero. I still have yet to turn into the world’s biggest infant. You know why Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney were pressured to drop out? Turns out it wasn’t because they are women, but because there was no way they could win. If any of these women had a legitimate excuse to not vote for Obama, I’m all ears, but what I’m hearing now is just is bitterness crammed in between stupidity.


Cynthia Ruccia, 55, a sales director for Mary Kay cosmetics in Columbus, Ohio, is organizing a group, Clinton Supporters Count Too, of mostly women in swing states who plan to campaign against Mr. Obama in November. “We, the most loyal constituency, are being told to sit down, shut up and get to the back of the bus,” she said.


Wait. Your Democratic candidate was beaten by another Democratic candidate, so you’re going to do what you can to make sure a Republican wins the White House? What a fucking lunatic. I can totally understand her not wanting to vote for Obama because he doesn’t represent her views. That is what you are supposed to do in a Democracy, but this goes so far beyond that. They are planning to actively fight against what they believe in to help elect someone who greatly opposes their political beliefs. And they are doing so because of a self-created fantasy that involves them being told to “shut up and get in the back of the bus.” Which is weird, because that actually makes me want to tell them to shut up and get in the back of the bus.

I used to be a daily reader of a blog called TalkLeft. It’s actually an interesting blog because a lawyer created it and the two main bloggers talk about subjects from a liberal legal viewpoint. Up until a couple of months ago, I was a daily reader. But the sight became one of the few liberal blogs that supports Clinton. (The creator is a middle aged lady - go figure.) Going to the site and reading the comments is like taking a trip into an alternate universe. It is, quite simply, mind-boggling.


Why couldn't Obama have just let Hillary run and wait his turn? He's been in Washington about a minute and half. No one knows anything about him and he has sooooo little experience. I worry about who he would appoint to important jobs like State department and Defense and others.


Right. He might appoint Sinbad as Secretary of Defense.

I find comments that Obama should have waited his turn to be insulting. He’s supposed to wait for her? Why? Because she’s an “experienced woman?” And experienced women get to go before black guys? Does the experience part include voting the wrong way on Iraq? Because that’s one of the main reasons a lot of people aren’t supporting her. Just think how Hillary supporters would take this statement if the situation were reversed; if the black man was behind and telling the woman to wait her turn. They’d lose their fucking minds. Although, they are already losing their minds.


Tuesday Obama will try to steal the nomination in much the same way that Bush stole the 2000 election. He will declare victory when there is none.

He sees victory slipping away and is clinging to hope out of desperation.

His superdelegate endorsements have slowed to a trickle, if even that.

He is behind in the popular vote if we still value democracy and this is still a country made up of 50 states.


Well, no, no, no, no and no.

I realize I am just plucking messages off a board, but it's fun and easy -- oh, and they are examples of the mass delusion that seems to have overcome Clinton supporters. And Hillary is leading them on this path. Yesterday her campaign began this “stealing the election, count all the votes” drive. It is the most destructive path she can go down, which means she will. She is actually now running around comparing the Florida and Michigan situation to the Gore/Bush Florida 2000 election fiasco. Amazing.

The most annoying comment of all is the most often repeated comment.


You can’t handle a strong woman.


Totally. I’ll tell my wife, the doctor, I can’t handle her and I need her to stop making so much money, being so successful and shut the fuck up. Part of equality means taking the good with the bad, which means accepting when people judge a female candidate on her character and policies – not her sex. It's actually a step backwards for feminism not to do so.

Some of us can actually say “no” to a candidate because we don’t believe she’d be the best president – and that actually has nothing to do with the fact that she has a vagina. I understand some people are always going to have a problem with the idea of a woman president. But guess what, some people are also always going to have a problem with a black president.

And, while we’re at it, if the reason Hillary didn’t win is because of sexism, then how is it she won the white, working class male vote in most states? Please explain. How are men holding her back by voting for her? But her followers won’t even contemplate such a thought. It’s time to rage. It’s time to scream in anger that Hillary was the right candidate but the wrong gender, and completely ignore the obvious truth that she was the right gender but the wrong candidate.

Now, I’m not denying she took her share of lumps. Chris Mathews and his insanely sexist comments come to mind. And there were articles written about what she was wearing. They were incredibly sexist. The media would never do such a thing to a man and certainly not to a candidate from South Carolina who got an expensive haircut. No way a newspaper columnist at a political conference called him a “faggot”. That kind of shit only happens to women, because the country is sexist. Political pundits definitely wouldn’t call a Governor from Massachusetts a pretty boy, would they? Perish the thought.

Obviously the reason Clinton lost is because she is a woman. I mean, Obama has less experience than Hillary. Why would anyone pick the candidate with less experience, unless they were afraid of a strong woman? That’s why America chose Obama over Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, Kucinich and Biden – because they are all women. They had more experience, but they also had vaginas. And that’s why the less experienced Kennedy beat a female named Nixon, and less qualified Carter beat Lady Ford, and inexperienced Bill Clinton beat Granny Bush.

Now we will have to wait to see if these women carry out their threats.


We have a plan to campaign against the Democratic nominee. We have the (wo)manpower and the money to make our threat real. And there are millions of supporters who will back us up in the swing states. If you don’t listen to our voice now, you will hear from us later.

We're just at the boiling point. Women will sit back and be quiet about things for a while, but we've had enough. Unless Hillary Clinton is our nominee, we are not going to support the nominee.


Succumbing to threats is always the best way to choose a candidate. They are putting their lifetime of anger into this one political campaign and if it doesn’t happen, well, then they are going to kill everybody. This is different than past inside party conflicts. This is very different than John McCain against George Bush in 2000. This shit goes deep, this is a lifetime of rage and we’ve gone past the tipping point.

We are now into the scorched Earth phase. This idea is coming from the top. Hillary and her campaign have been pushing the sexism excuse for a week. They are combining it with “election theft” by saying the DNC conspired to make sure a man won the nomination. You’ve got to wonder how many more wounds she can open and dig into before this race is over. I’m starting to yearn for the days when she was launching vicious attacks on Obama, as they were probably less damaging.

The fascinating thing about this whole mess is that if Hillary were a man, she’d be gone by now. Long gone.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

MAY 22, 2008 03:05 PM

Subrosa said:
Nancy Pelosi's all "Yeah, not so much."


For the record that interview is 8 minutes long and really, I think, paints an encouraging picture about the vision that will bring the party back together after Obama is officially declared the nominee.

It's available for free via iTunes today (only the current day's podcast is listed) and a free transcript is online.

smile

It's a good podcast too, worth subscribing to if you regularly listen to podcasts.

Seasan

Seasan

HOPEFUL

Newark, DE

MAY 22, 2008 06:00 PM

i CANNOT believe that Mary Kay lady said "get to the back of the bus" i spit my soda out over that one. how appropriate that phrase when it comes to voting against a black man. my thing is this, if people perhaps looked at obama as a white man with a black daddy instead of a black man with a white mama, maybe they would have different opinions?

because lets face it, if it was hilary and some other white guy running, nobody would really be screaming the sexism card in this case

its 2008 for gods sake, get over the color line, if people still believe that blacks are inferior, or any person of a colored race is inferior, then they seriously deserved to be done in the put with a nail studded hot dildo

livertarian

livertarian

Fairfax, VA
February 2008

MAY 22, 2008 07:16 PM

ckdexterhaven said:

wildswan said:
And in between the most ardent, nonobjective poles in both camps are the sensible people who ultimately care about the issues: court appointments, foreign policy issues, domestic issues, civil rights issues, environmental issues, etc. These are the people who realize that the two candidates share the same goals, and ultimately, that's the salient point.


I do find it disturbing when Barack Obama's supporters don't mirror, in their behavior, what they claim to admire about Barack, the man.

Where's the comity and decorum, from those who claim it as their banner? It makes me wonder to what degree Obama has genuinely influenced his supporters.

When Obama speaks positively of his opponent, is he being ignored by some of his supporters? Do some think that he's just saying that out of political expediency, and are just fine with that, all the while claiming that his apolitical approach is what distinguishes him from his peers?


I would add: These cartoonish characterizations won't help deal with the gravitas of the political reality: The Dems will, at the end of the day, need these "hysterical middle-aged, hot-flashing women' to win the White House.


Unless, of course, you're every bit as political as you claim not to be; and the issues that are more important than any individual candidate ever was, or ever should be, don't mean so much to you.


+1 on all of this.



"The squeaky wheel gets the grease." Political nutbags across the spectrum always seem to get the media attention, unfortunately. Every major candidate has supporters who are more liability than an asset, and these people definitely lower the level of discourse in politics - I think these people love the game more than understanding the issues at stake. It's like track betting to them. I've met several folks who fit this type, anyway.

For me, the simple truth of Hillary's failure is the exact same as Kerry's was in the general election: They are weak candidates. Hillary's gender or choice of clothes never made an impression on me - but her willingness to pander to the majority on Iraq definitely did. If she actually had some integrity, or even consistency fer chrissakes, it would trump any media bias you could come up with.

strndniowa

strndniowa

Grimes, IA
May 2007

MAY 22, 2008 08:11 PM

This has just gone on too long- the democrats had two fairly strong candidates...now they have one that has pretty much taken it...now what to do now...do we get together behind the nominee...or should half the party be sore losers and vote against Obama out of spite...
Is this a bad fucking joke? Is this really happening?
Or wait- could this kind of crap have something to do with why Bush jr. is on his second term...
This country needs a damn change...and it is starting to look like in more ways then one?
This race has turned into the childish version of an eighth grade election for student body president...no, wait- that was handled better...at least the ballots were sure and secure...

livertarian

livertarian

Fairfax, VA
February 2008

MAY 22, 2008 09:00 PM

FearTheRopers said:
BooMan:

"I think this delegitimization of Obama's victory is the act she will be most remembered for. And if Obama does not win the election in November, Clinton will join Ralph Nader in the left-wing Hall of Shame."



I don't buy into the spoiler/splitter mentality at all. To blame Nader for votes that "belonged" to Gore or Kerry seems pretty silly to me. If those voters were persuaded by Nader, that tells me that Gore/Kerry failed them one way or another. It's not like third party candidates can outspend the real climbers. Those voters were truly concerned, and found a stronger message with somebody else, end of story. Not that I like Nader - I think he's totally wrong - but his conviction and seeming integrity on issues is unassailable, and ultimately persuasive in a climate of pure cynicism and watered-down social politics. (EDIT) With people for whom conviction or integrity matters, anyhow. The rest seem to be playing the Electability Game, which is what got Kerry, a chump, nominated in the first place. How else could people have nominated a guy who can't make a speech to save his life?

ckdexterhaven

ckdexterhaven

Redding, CA
December 2005

MAY 22, 2008 09:19 PM

livertarian said:

FearTheRopers said:
BooMan:

"I think this delegitimization of Obama's victory is the act she will be most remembered for. And if Obama does not win the election in November, Clinton will join Ralph Nader in the left-wing Hall of Shame."



I don't buy into the spoiler/splitter mentality at all. To blame Nader for votes that "belonged" to Gore or Kerry seems pretty silly to me. If those voters were persuaded by Nader, that tells me that Gore/Kerry failed them one way or another. It's not like third party candidates can outspend the real climbers. Those voters were truly concerned, and found a stronger message with somebody else, end of story. Not that I like Nader - I think he's totally wrong - but his conviction and seeming integrity on issues is unassailable, and ultimately persuasive in a climate of pure cynicism and watered-down social politics.


Good lord, I didn't even notice that BooMan quote. It's good to know that some obsessive Obama supporters already have ready-made excuses handy in case he loses. I mean, there's no way an election loss could possibly be the fault of Obama or his campaign in any way. Nope, it's gotta be someone else's fault. That's a good attitude.

Nolan_Void

Nolan_Void

Salisbury, NC
July 2004

MAY 22, 2008 09:41 PM

ckdexterhaven said:

livertarian said:

FearTheRopers said:
BooMan:

"I think this delegitimization of Obama's victory is the act she will be most remembered for. And if Obama does not win the election in November, Clinton will join Ralph Nader in the left-wing Hall of Shame."



I don't buy into the spoiler/splitter mentality at all. To blame Nader for votes that "belonged" to Gore or Kerry seems pretty silly to me. If those voters were persuaded by Nader, that tells me that Gore/Kerry failed them one way or another. It's not like third party candidates can outspend the real climbers. Those voters were truly concerned, and found a stronger message with somebody else, end of story. Not that I like Nader - I think he's totally wrong - but his conviction and seeming integrity on issues is unassailable, and ultimately persuasive in a climate of pure cynicism and watered-down social politics.


Good lord, I didn't even notice that BooMan quote. It's good to know that some obsessive Obama supporters already have ready-made excuses handy in case he loses. I mean, there's no way an election loss could possibly be the fault of Obama or his campaign in any way. Nope, it's gotta be someone else's fault. That's a good attitude.



Hillary Clinton undermined her own campaign by saying she has always been against policies like NAFTA, which she is on record having voted for. She's supported policies like the gas tax which independent economic experts dubbed a gimmick that won't work. She's lost more states in wider margins than Obama has lost to her. Despite all of Obama's controversies, he has not lost any ground, and has even continued to gain steady ground. Superdelegates have realized that Hillary Clinton is like the S.S. Crazy Sore Loser, sinking in flames into the ocean, and they are fleeing her like rats abandoning ship. Her choices in the last couple of months have drawn comparisons among voters between her and McCain, and the fact that she has done her best to whip her followers into a raging anti-Obama frenzy despite the fact that everyone has admitted that there is no way for her to win is her fault. Not Obama's.

If you cannot see this by now...I just don't even know why I would bother saying anything to you anymore. You are going to see only what you want to see, and so you should be left to it.

livertarian

livertarian

Fairfax, VA
February 2008

MAY 22, 2008 09:43 PM

Hunter said:
I'm finding it tough to figure out what's motivating Hillary at this point. She's a very smart person, but clearly delusional in this area; something in her brain is malfunctioning. If Obama loses the general election because of her, everyone is going to hate her guts (except maybe those angry ladies). How will they feel when Obama loses and McCain appoints judges who then overturn Roe vs. Wade? It's truly psychotic of them to be willing to take such a huge hit to their own interests just to get back at Obama for beating HIllary fair and square.

Then again, I think a lot of it is talk, and when it comes down to it, any Hillary supporter with a rational bone in her body is going to vote for Obama over McCain when the time comes. At least, I'd like to give people that much credit.



I do not understand the idea of blame here - I'm not saying you're blaming anyone, but to suggest that Obama might lose the election "because of Hillary" makes no sense to me. It's Obama's job to persuade people. Some people will not be persuaded. There is no blame I can find, but plenty of reasons that boil down to the often ridiculous extremes of politics. I see no reason to assume those voters would have accepted Obama without controversy in the absence of a Clinton campaign.

FearTheReaper

FearTheReaper

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

MAY 22, 2008 09:50 PM

livertarian said:
I do not understand the idea of blame here - I'm not saying you're blaming anyone, but to suggest that Obama might lose the election "because of Hillary" makes no sense to me. It's Obama's job to persuade people. Some people will not be persuaded. There is no blame I can find, but plenty of reasons that boil down to the often ridiculous extremes of politics. I see no reason to assume those voters would have accepted Obama without controversy in the absence of a Clinton campaign.



Oh, come on. She has demonized Obama. Her camp has been claiming he is the reason the Florida and MIchigan votes are not being counted. She's saying he's winning by cheating, like Bush.

Some people will not vote for Obama because of the actions of the Clinton campaign. That's obvious. It's just a matter of how many.

ckdexterhaven

ckdexterhaven

Redding, CA
December 2005

MAY 22, 2008 10:05 PM

Nolan_Void said:

ckdexterhaven said:

livertarian said:

FearTheRopers said:
BooMan:

"I think this delegitimization of Obama's victory is the act she will be most remembered for. And if Obama does not win the election in November, Clinton will join Ralph Nader in the left-wing Hall of Shame."



I don't buy into the spoiler/splitter mentality at all. To blame Nader for votes that "belonged" to Gore or Kerry seems pretty silly to me. If those voters were persuaded by Nader, that tells me that Gore/Kerry failed them one way or another. It's not like third party candidates can outspend the real climbers. Those voters were truly concerned, and found a stronger message with somebody else, end of story. Not that I like Nader - I think he's totally wrong - but his conviction and seeming integrity on issues is unassailable, and ultimately persuasive in a climate of pure cynicism and watered-down social politics.


Good lord, I didn't even notice that BooMan quote. It's good to know that some obsessive Obama supporters already have ready-made excuses handy in case he loses. I mean, there's no way an election loss could possibly be the fault of Obama or his campaign in any way. Nope, it's gotta be someone else's fault. That's a good attitude.



Hillary Clinton undermined her own campaign by saying she has always been against policies like NAFTA, which she is on record having voted for. She's supported policies like the gas tax which independent economic experts dubbed a gimmick that won't work. She's lost more states in wider margins than Obama has lost to her. Despite all of Obama's controversies, he has not lost any ground, and has even continued to gain steady ground. Superdelegates have realized that Hillary Clinton is like the S.S. Crazy Sore Loser, sinking in flames into the ocean, and they are fleeing her like rats abandoning ship. Her choices in the last couple of months have drawn comparisons among voters between her and McCain, and the fact that she has done her best to whip her followers into a raging anti-Obama frenzy despite the fact that everyone has admitted that there is no way for her to win is her fault. Not Obama's.

If you cannot see this by now...I just don't even know why I would bother saying anything to you anymore. You are going to see only what you want to see, and so you should be left to it.


I'll say what I've said before on here, if a candidate can't even escape his or her own party's primary season without sustaining fatal wounds, then he/she is a flawed candidate to begin with.

Obama is going to have a good 4-5 months (I see Hillary getting out sometime in mid June) of head-to-head time with McCain. 3 debates (at least), all of those weeks of criss-crossing the country with his rock star routine, filling up arenas, and with his campaign setting its sights on McCain.

It'll be all on Obama, win or lose. It's called being a big boy, and taking ownership. Personally, I'm rather confident about Obama's chances of taking back the White House for Dems. I plan on helping him do just that with my vote here in California.

Tallboy66

Tallboy66

USA
January 2005

MAY 22, 2008 11:03 PM

Hunter said:
I'm finding it tough to figure out what's motivating Hillary at this point. She's a very smart person, but clearly delusional in this area; something in her brain is malfunctioning. If Obama loses the general election because of her, everyone is going to hate her guts (except maybe those angry ladies). How will they feel when Obama loses and McCain appoints judges who then overturn Roe vs. Wade? It's truly psychotic of them to be willing to take such a huge hit to their own interests just to get back at Obama for beating HIllary fair and square.

Then again, I think a lot of it is talk, and when it comes down to it, any Hillary supporter with a rational bone in her body is going to vote for Obama over McCain when the time comes. At least, I'd like to give people that much credit.



Hillary is motivated just because, and they really want to get back in the white house.
And you'd think people would have that kind of common sense but...

BlastProcessing

BlastProcessing

Knoxville, TN
OLD SKOOL

MAY 22, 2008 11:17 PM

ckdexterhaven said:

It'll be all on Obama, win or lose. It's called being a big boy, and taking ownership. Personally, I'm rather confident about Obama's chances of taking back the White House for Dems. I plan on helping him do just that with my vote here in California.



This isn't about people like you.

Or for that matter, people like him.

chocohoodie

chocohoodie

I'm lost
February 2005

MAY 23, 2008 12:30 AM

FearTheRopers said:

livertarian said:
I do not understand the idea of blame here - I'm not saying you're blaming anyone, but to suggest that Obama might lose the election "because of Hillary" makes no sense to me. It's Obama's job to persuade people. Some people will not be persuaded. There is no blame I can find, but plenty of reasons that boil down to the often ridiculous extremes of politics. I see no reason to assume those voters would have accepted Obama without controversy in the absence of a Clinton campaign.



Oh, come on. She has demonized Obama. Her camp has been claiming he is the reason the Florida and MIchigan votes are not being counted. She's saying he's winning by cheating, like Bush.

Some people will not vote for Obama because of the actions of the Clinton campaign. That's obvious. It's just a matter of how many.



Would you mind showing me the quote where they say that Obama is the one preventing the votes from Florida and/or Michigan from being counted?

Also, while it's entirely fair to say that her campaign has taken some cheap shots at Obama, you can't deny that there have been instances of the reverse happening too. And I don't think you can say Obama is being demonized by her when she says things like:

"I want to commend Senator Obama and his supporters. This continues to be a hard-fought race, from one end of our country to the other. And yes, we've had a few dust-ups along the way, but our commitment to bring America new leadership that will renew America's promise means that we have always stood together on what is most important.'

BellyJack

BellyJack

I'm lost
May 2005

MAY 23, 2008 02:30 AM

wildswan said:
... I do find it disturbing when Barack Obama's supporters don't mirror, in their behavior, what they claim to admire about Barack, the man.

Where's the comity and decorum, from those who claim it as their banner? It makes me wonder to what degree Obama has genuinely influenced his supporters. ...



It disturbs me as well. They've perhaps confused comity with calumny. Senator Clinton certainly is pushing that boundary, but I'm more concerned by the media machine's treatment of politics.

The "horse race" aspect is paramount, and opinionated bloviation is the norm while factual information and analysis of the issues gets short shrift.

scylis

scylis

Seattle, WA
November 2004

MAY 23, 2008 03:43 AM

i give this thread a C.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next

Now Hear This

Last Comment 5 HR by orbro

Now Hear This

Last Comment 5 HR

There's like a half-hour of video here. You should do a vlog. More ...

Asshole Fuckface Roundup #74

Last Comment 5 HR

Parents who are accustomed to carrying guns around may not think anything of going into child-related... More ...

An Encounter With Jonathan Shaw's Narcisa

Last Comment 6 HR

thanx gurlz... u rrrrrule!! xx jonathan shaw and narcisa More ...

SuicideGirl: Bob

Bob

Terrible Woman's MySpace Alias Leads to Teen's Suicide.

Last Comment 21 HR

But, it's delivered poorly...really poorly. Unless, it's not a joke, in which case, it's a good place... More ...

Bail The Shit Out Of Detroit

Last Comment 11/30/08 by Shalome

Bail The Shit Out Of Detroit

Last Comment 11/30/08

Oh my fucking god. More ...

Filtering the Truth: Religion - Friend or Foe?

Last Comment 11/30/08

I'm just going to skip over the mass orgy that's going on and say my piece: I don't think religion is... More ...

SuicideGirls Interview: Les Claypool
SuicideGirls Interview: Alex Borstein
SuicideGirls Interview: Marty Krofft