[ BACK ]

Transcript from the Stephanie Birmingham show - first hour
Host: Talk Radio 102.3 Birmingham is the show. Stephanie Birmingham. And welcome to you. 1:00 to 3:00 Monday through Friday we talk about whatever is on my mind. And the minds of my guests and I do have some guests today. We're going to get to that. And to everybody who's watched the whole show today has known about President Clinton and yes, I'm anxiously awaiting the results of his testimony. It's supposed to get started any minute now -- well, it's 1:08; he was supposed to testify at 1:00. So it's probably getting underway right now. There have been so many things [inaudible] that I am past speculation. And you know with this Clinton thing, I, for the longest time, really, really got upset at everybody's apathy about it. And I'm really not apathetic about it. I'm really starting to understand it. It has gone on so, so, so far too long. Hopefully today is gonna be the beginning of the close of it, either way, although I doubt it. I'm not even going to speculate, not even going to do it. I didn't think he was going to testify, so there. I said I'd eat crow if I was wrong; apparently I'm wrong. No word yet that he's testified, but apparently he's going to, so I'll just chalk one up for my being wrong there. See? I am wrong every now and then. I can admit it when I'm wrong. So apparently he's gonna testify.

In USA Today we have comments from everybody from Anita Hill to DeeDee Myers. Patricia Ireland, President of NOW, Senator Orrin Hatch, special counsel Lanny Davis also has made some comments. And everybody's got their idea of what he should do, what he might do, when they think he's gonna do, what Americans are gonna do. And it's all "word weave" -- if he says this, but he doesn't say this, but he doesn't cut this too thin, but he gets over to here, and says he's sorry for this, but doesn't say this and he didn't technically lie -- tell the truth. That's all there is to it. Answer all the questions completely and truthfully and maybe we can get this behind us and go on about the business of the country, taking care of the country. That's what I'm hoping is going to happen today We'll have further updates on that a little later on. 267-1023, 1888-779 TALK. That's how you get in touch with us.

(Host: spoken advertisement)

Host: Before we get to the guests, I'll talk to you. How're you doing?

Caller 1: You know, we're not gonna talk about it. But you know what? I was telling my daughter, I'm tensely waiting. And I think --- this is a sad situation.

Host: It is.

Caller 1: And I'm thinking, his wife has been ---- strategy --- well at 1:00 he will come on and tell us a miracle. You know what? It is time to pray, Stephanie.

Host: I agree, it has been time to pray.

Caller 1: Thank you.

Host: I appreciate your call. Can't disagree with that. I have a couple of guests today, as a matter of fact. You ever heard of the Rightgrrls? Rightgrrls, kind of a growly g-r-r-l-s. I don't know if that's the reason they did that or not, I'm gonna ask them in a minute. But the founders of Rightgrrl, Carolyn Gargaro, Stephanie Herman, you with me?

Stephanie: Yeah.

Host: How're you doing?

Carolyn: We're doing good.

Host: Stephanie, is that you?

Stephanie: That was Carolyn.

Host: OK, Carolyn, you on there, too?

Carolyn: Right here.

Host: Good, got everybody in here. Appreciate you guys being here today. Rightgrrls, R-i-g-h-t-g-r-r-l is that a growl?

Carolyn: A little bit, yeah. It's grrls, grrls is spelled g-r-r-l-s --

Host: A growly grrl?

Carolyn: -- that's an independent, opinionated woman. That's why we used that spelling.

Host: OK, well I like it. Tell me what Rightgrrl is. I was directed to your website by a friend of mine who was a featured Rightgrrl on your website, Patty Neill. She's been on the show before; she talked about trafficking number for all public officials. All public officials get this federal ID that's supposed to be a great idea. So she wrote about it, had some super response to it. She was on here. So tell me about Rightgrrl. What got you started?

Stephanie: Well, Carolyn and I met up on the internet about two years ago and were happy to discover that we shared opinions on just about everything, mainly conservative politics and the pro-life issue, and we wanted to create a site together that wasn't just going to be a personal conservative homepage, but that might draw in other conservative women who are pro-life. Before we met each other, it seemed to me, anyway, and I'll let Carolyn speak on this too, that I just felt like I was sort of living in a vacuum. And I didn't know any, many other conservative, young, pro-life women. And so we just figured together that maybe we could draw some of those younger, c, pro-life women together if there was a site that could do that. So that's why we started Rightgrrl.

Host: And you put together the website.

Stephanie: Mm-hm.

Host: And you and Carolyn are in two different states.

Stephanie: That's right.

Host: So when you put together the website, do you have meetings, organizational meetings?

Carolyn: Well, we discuss things online. We don't have regular meetings of any sort. Stephanie and I just email each other on a regular basis. In fact, the first time I ever spoke to her on the phone was just maybe a month or two ago that I finally actually talked to her on the phone. We had set all of this up through just email, regular email contact.

Stephanie: And we are together today, and this weekend is the first time that we've met face to face.

Host: Really?

Stephanie: Yeah.

Host: How interesting. How long has the website been going on?

Carolyn: It started, I guess we actually just put the very basic site up in March of 1997. We didn't really get it going until April, so we consider April the first actual full month of Rightgrrl. So it's been a little over a year, it's been going on.

Host: OK. I do have some more questions, a couple of phone calls are pending. So, hello there.

Caller 2: I found a website that says Miss Gargaro is running for president. Is that Carolyn?

Carolyn: OK, yes that site was set up by a very good friend of mine. He's a friend of mine online and he likes what Stephanie and I are doing on the internet for conservative issues. And he made that -- I'm not really running. It's sort of like a fun site, it's like a joke in a way. But people say, Oh I wish you could be president. But I'm not really running, no.

Stephanie: He did that as a surprise. He didn't tell Carolyn he was going to do that. She just sort of discovered it one day. It was a big surprise.

Host: Discovered for herself that she was running for president. But she's not really?

Caller 2: I'd vote for her.

Host: Yeah, I'd vote for her, too. I like that, thanks for calling. Appreciate it. So the Rightgrrls, conservative girls, pro-life. A lot of people would say that's one and the same; I would say it's probably not. But you do make a distinction.

Stephanie: Yeah, it's really not one and the same. When you're talking about people being on the left or the right you're generally talking about broader political issues than abortion. You're talking about the spectrum between socialism and individualism, is what it really boils down to. There are many arguments from a socialist perspective; the pro-life argument fits right in there. It's also very possible to be a strong individualist and to be on both sides of this issue. Certain libertarian pro-choice people would argue that a true individualist would be overly concerned about the rights of the mother, and if you bring the federal government in on abortion that you are trampling those individual rights. Whereas an individualist pro-life person would say, Well, it's perfectly possible to be staunchly individualist if you consider the fetus an individual.

Host: Yeah, I agree with you. And I hear that all the time. People ask me, people call into the show and say, You believe in freedom for everybody. Everybody makes their own decisions; everybody has responsibility for themselves, yet you would have the government interfere on abortion. I think they think they trap me with that question but my answer would be what yours is, your obvious answer and a very easy answer , and that is: yes, a woman has a right to do what she wants to do with her body. There are some things that are prohibited by law for her to do with her body, but frankly, if she wants to do whatever in the privacy of her own home, violating no one, in my opinion that's her business. But abortion is not her body. Medically, it's not her body.

Stephanie: So we do make that distinction because abortion just fails as a litmus test for either side of the political aisle. So we do make the distinction on our site that we are conservative and pro-life.

Host: I was talking to some feminists the other day and a lot of times you'll hear "feminist" and you assume that means "on the left," Democrat. They all seem to flow together, right or wrong. But there are several organizations, one of them is Feminists for Life, pro-life feminist organization and they certainly don't call themselves conservative.

Carolyn: No, they come from a point of view that often isn't expressed. And that is that abortion is not pro-woman. They see it as an infringement of the rights of unborn women and also that it hurts women in society, born women. In fact, Feminists for Life was started by some women who were basically ostracized from the National Organization for Women for their pro-life views. And they are very pro-woman and they are very much for women's rights and for women's freedom and for women to be able to do what they want to do. However, they believe, as we do, that women's rights and women being empowered does not mean you have to infringe on the rights of an unborn child. So they often will show the harm that abortion has done to some women, why it's not a good thing, why a lot of women are pressured into having abortions, and how that is not a pro-woman thing to do. And they also cite more options for women and hopefully eliminate the need for abortion sometimes so it's not even an issue.

Host: I've always thought of the "left," if you want to call it that, the liberals as some people refer to them, as being the group who is, quote-unquote, the tolerant people. Who could tolerate everything and everybody and everything's OK. As long as you agree with them, they'll tolerate you. But you just said that they were ostracized from the National Organization for Women because of their stance on abortion?

Carolyn: Yes, those women were and that's what got them interested in starting Feminists for Life. I have been told that I cannot be a feminist because I am pro-life. They say that is an oxymoron; you can't be a feminist and be pro-life.

Host: This came up on the show Friday, this very thing came up on the show Friday, when I talked about a girlfriend of mine who was in a women's studies class. And she'll call herself a conservative, but she wants to be a feminist and she'd ask her professor, and her professor told her (and I'm sure this is not how every person who calls themself a "feminist" believes) but her professor told her that unless she supported abortion and bisexuality that she could not be a feminist. Another feminist called in and said, Not so. Not all feminists feel that way, and I'm sure they don't.

Carolyn: That's really narrowing down the definition of feminism. Feminism really has a very broad definition and people have different definitions for it. And to make it such a specific group of people really narrows the number of women who are feminists. It's really strange -- they want women to be empowered, all women to be empowered, and all women to have equality, yet they define feminism (some people, not all people) define it in such narrow terms that it can't include a good portion of women.

Stephanie: And Carolyn is a pro-life feminist and she makes that claim on the site. But I do not claim to be a feminist.

Host: I want to talk about that. That was a question I wanted to ask you right after the break. Hold that thought -- coming right back to you. ~~ Carolyn Gargaro, Stephanie Herman, the Rightgrrls our guests today on Birmingham the Show. Good afternoon to you; thanks for listening.

[commercial break]

Host: Talk Radio 102.3 Stephanie Birmingham; the show is Birmingham ~~ My guests joining me via telephone way up north are Stephanie Herman and Carolyn Gargaro. They are the Rightgrrls. You know the Rightgrrls? That's what we're talking about now. Rightgrrl is a website that is by and for conservative women. Now we were talking about feminism; I want to get into that right after I take this phone call; we've got a couple questions for y'all. Hello caller.

Caller 3: Yes, ladies. I have a comment about abortion. One thing that irks me -- I'm against it. And I'm in conversations with people that were for it. They said, Well, you know, it can't live outside, it's not viable. But to me, OK, it is growing; is that not correct?

Host: Yes, constantly.

Caller 3: Constantly. And in my definition, if something's growing, is it alive or dead?

Host: Well, it's certainly alive and by my definition, or, the question I always ask is, Are you stopping a life? And the answer is always Yes. You can't get away from the fact that you are stopping a life.

Caller 3: That's true. And another thing I always like to ask them, which they don't have too much to say, is they're always talking about "pro-choice." Well, the one that has the most to lose has no choice.

Host: True. Absolutely true.

Caller 3: I just wanted to bring up those couple items, if I may, to y'all... those things I like to use to people who say it's a woman's right to do what she wants to with her body...

Host: Yes, I agree that it is. But not with the body that is not her own.

Caller 3: I appreciate it.

Host: Thank you for the call; I appreciate you. Carolyn, Stephanie, I'm sure you get these questions all the time, all the time. So my question is, we can go with the abortion issue again or I could just ask you the question, How often do you really change somebody's mind on abortion? I've had a hard time doing it. Usually it's a difficult thing to sway somebody on.

Carolyn: I don't know if I've actually changed anybody's mind. I never expect to change someone who is staunchly pro-choice; I never expect to change their mind. I seek to educate people who have not defined it strongly either way. There are times when people have said that I've influenced their opinion on it a great deal. I don't think I've ever changed anybody's mind who wasn't already leaning towards one way, towards the pro-life viewpoint a little bit. What we have been able to do is educate some people on some issues and also many people who are uncomfortable to speak out about their views on it, because if they say they find our site they feel like I'm not the only person. Sometimes you feel like the only one with your views.

Host: Oh, yes.

Stephanie: But I do think that we have that hope. That, one of the focus areas of Rightgrrl is that we want to make some arguments against abortion that aren't made everyday. Most of the arguments against it are based on Biblical reasoning, and there's nothing wrong with that, but that's the only argument that ever gets any press.

Host: What's an argument that you would make that's off the course, off the usual course?

Stephanie: Right.

Host: Like what would be an example?

Stephanie: Oh, well actually what we hope to do in the future is look into the legality behind Roe v. Wade where there's a lot of questionable law that occurred.

Host: It seems to me that there's a lot of questionable law regarding state's rights.

Carolyn: Yes, in fact, Roe v. Wade technically is unconstitutional because it really took away -- it gave power to the federal government that should not be given to the federal government, should be at least given to the states. And the whole premise for Roe v. Wade was based on the implied right to privacy in the constitution. And there is no such right to privacy in the constitution. They just, kind of made it up, almost.

Host: Very interesting. I asked you a minute ago, we were talking about feminism, and you said, Carolyn you said you are a feminist, a pro-life feminist.

Carolyn: Yes.

Host: So tell me why you are a feminist, and Stephanie I want to know why you're not a feminist.

Carolyn: OK, I call myself a feminist because I am very much for human equality. I'm very much for women being able to have the same opportunities as men. And if they can do the job as well as a man, they should have that opportunity. I'm not saying women have to work; if they feel that they want to stay home and take care of children, that is great. But women, if they want to work, should have that opportunity, and we do. But I'm also very much for women being strong and being opinionated and being independent. And not always relying on somebody else. So I call myself a feminist because I don't know how else to define that type of view. So that's how I refer to myself.

Host: So do you get a lot of questions about being a conservative and calling yourself a feminist also?

Carolyn: Yes, I get people saying, How can you call yourself a feminist if you're not pro-choice or you're not liberal? And I have other people saying, It's really nice to see a feminist that doesn't fit the stereotype. And other people say, Well you're not really a feminist; you're just a strong-willed woman and that you shouldn't call yourself a feminist because "feminist" is defined as liberal and pro-choice. Like I said, I use the term feminist because I don't know how else to describe that point of view, really.

Host: I can see it would be a little bit confusing because it does have a stereotype, an imagined stereotype. Well, a real or imagined stereotype of certainly those who fit, and certainly those like yourself, who don't fit. The way I see it, if you want to call yourself a feminist, you can. I think it means probably whatever it means to you.

Carolyn: A lot of people are just defining feminism in different ways. So there is no strict definition for a feminist.

Host: And Stephanie says she's not a feminist.

Stephanie: Yeah, and I think the difference between Carolyn and I boils down really to a technicality. I agree with Carolyn as far as how I view women's rights. I also believe that they should have every opportunity that a man should have. But I call that common sense; I don't think that that position needs an -ism moniker.

Host: Well, that makes sense to me. That makes sense to me. So the website works anyway. There doesn't seem to be a lot of challenge between you two. It's worked anyway; it's done a good job. You've had some really neat featured Rightgrrls on there. You have a really neat one coming up in September, too, don't you?

Stephanie: Sure do.

Host: Yeah, that would be me.

Carolyn: Yes, you are one of our featured Rightgrrls coming up.

Host: Yeah, that's neat; I appreciate that. I want to give the website several times so everybody can know where to find you, so do you want to do that, the URL?

Carolyn: The URL is www.rightgrrl.com, spelled R-I-G-H-T-G-R-R-L.

Host: OK. Rightgrrl.com. And that's got several different links to it. It's got many essays that have been written by women. It's got links to places you wouldn't expect to see links. You really do need to check it out for yourself; it's a very interesting website. And, I guess I said we weren't gonna talk the whole show about Clinton/Lewinsky, but it's almost inevitable to bring it up. I'm sure that it's been the topic of conversation on the website and other people who frequent your website, so what's going on with you guys about Clinton and Lewinsky? What kind of questions are you getting?

Carolyn: We haven't had a whole lot of people asking us too many questions about it. Mostly what we find is disbelief, really. If you want to look at it from a "feminist" point of view, yesterday I heard Patricia Ireland say on TV, somebody asked her, If it comes out that he did lie, that Clinton lied about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, how would you view that? And she said, Well, it's almost a given -- she said something to the effect that, It's almost a given that men will cheat and that -- it's a private matter between him and his wife and we really shouldn't look into it.

Host: So, again, we're reducing the whole issue to sex.

Carolyn: Right, and that's not the issue. The issue is, Did he commit perjury? There's no new law that says it's OK to lie under oath if it's about sex. There's no new law that says it's OK to obstruct justice if it's about sex. And they want to make it some new law that, well, if you lie about sex, it's understandable. And we're not just talking about lying about sex. We're talking about lying about sex under oath. There's a big difference.

Host: Once again, I'll say what I've said a million times. Next time you're in court for any reason, why don't you tell the judge it's none of his business.

Carolyn: Exactly.

Host: Just give it a shot and see what happens. Yeah, Patricia Ireland in USA Today, "Last Minute Advice" is the title of the little article. And she said it may be inappropriate, "but after four years and all of this money, they've got nothing on the Clinton's and Whitewater," evading the issue.

Carolyn: And that's not true. They've made 15 indictments in Whitewater.

Host: Yeah, "Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate -- the best that Starr apparently has is consensual sex. Consensual sex with a 21-year-old may be inappropriate, OK, but is certainly not impeachable. And I think if Congress is going to take any action, the only people who should be allowed to vote are the ones who never lied about their sex life." And this is supposedly an intelligent woman, who is the head of the National Organization for Women, who's gonna come out with something like this.

Carolyn: She doesn't even address the issue.

Host: Of course not.

Carolyn: What about the issue of obstructing justice? What about -- if it is proven -- if he lied in the Paula Jones deposition, what about Paula Jones' right to a fair trail? Was it fair for him to try and not have her get a fair trial by lying in a deposition?

Host: Well, Paula Jones' suit was dismissed by Judge Susan Webber Wright who was, incidentally, a student of Clinton's. Would it have been dismissed if all this had come out? Does this change everything in the Paula Jones suit?

Stephanie: It's beginning to look that way, but of course, we don't know for sure. But what a lot of the people engaged in spin are trying to say about that is that, the fact that the Paula Jones case was dismissed somehow negates what Clinton did in his deposition on that case. As if it negates his perjury and his attempt to obstruct justice. It doesn't negate it; it substantiates it.

Host: Yes, and I think a lot of people are actually, believe it or not, starting to think for themselves on this. Prime example: the media. The big media. When this first came out, you know, like they do with anything else, in my opinion, that goes against the liberal stream, you push it to the side and use even inflection in their voice, use certain words to discredit whatever has -- would go on that would try to discredit the president. And it's happened many, many times; they're not doing that anymore. They're not doing it at all anymore. It's almost a given -- listen to ABC, listen to any news -- it's almost a given that we accept now, regardless of what we said or he said, that the president had some form of sexual relations with Lewinsky. And they're not even buying into the old technically...

[tape break]

Stephanie: ... there are certain cues that you can take watching this whole scenario unfold. For one thing, Clinton has not said much past his initial denial back in January and people like Rush and other conservatives have called upon Clinton to come out and really give us the story. If Clinton or his advisors were really thinking, they would have come out and said, Hey, how can we prove a negative? I can't prove that I didn't do these things. But by saying that, they would then be placing the burden of proof on Ken Starr. They would say, I can't prove I didn't do it; you prove I did do it. Why haven't they done that? Well, the most obvious assumption to make is that there probably is evidence out there that Ken Starr could use to prove it, and so they have just lied very, very low.

Host: Well, and that is what we've seen happen. And I don't think it's rushing to judgment. I think that it is perhaps trying to rush to justice. Bob Starr [sic], who's been the one who's been weighted down with the 40 million dollar price tag and that it's been his fault, but I haven't seen Bob Starr [sic] as the one dragging his feet. I haven't seen Bob Starr as the one doing all the spins and all the, We've gotta wait, and the, We've gotta hold on, and eleventh-hour stabs at trying to get somebody to please stop this. And we're finally here today. And again, I'm not gonna speculate. Really I can't, I have no clue at this point what's gonna happen, but I'm very interested to find out. 267-1023. Hello, caller.

Caller 4: Hello, Stephanie.

Host: Hi there.

Caller 4: How are you today?

Host: I'm fine, thank you, ma'am.

Caller 4: You were talking about Clinton and the media, and this morning -- it was so funny -- they were talking on the news: Yeah, President Clinton's going to go in front of the Grand Jury today. He's not even going to go into a courtroom.

Host: Right.

Caller 4: He's going into the Map Room. And it's like, they're making it out like it's some big trial and it's not. It's a joke. He's like linked up to this satellite to the jurors, and there was something [inaudible] that if they had a question about one of the answers or something, they could call the judge. What kind of jury is that? What kind of court is that? It's a joke!

Host: Yeah, yeah.

Caller 4: I mean, wouldn't it be nice to sit in your living room and like, via satellite, talk about --

Host: And pick and choose whichever questions you want to answer. I said I wouldn't speculate, but I lied. I changed my mind. I didn't lie; I changed my mind. I really think that what's gonna happen is, instead of getting answers, it's gonna be a lot of, I don't recall or, I'm not gonna answer that, and it's just gonna be prolonged. That would be, if I had to speculate, that's what I would say is gonna happen today.

Caller 4: Exactly. And if he's telling the truth, and this is my [inaudible], if he were going in there to tell the truth, why would he have to rehearse with his attorney? Wouldn't he just go in there and say, I did it, or I didn't do it. Reduce the phrase that he did or he didn't and have it over with. Why is he reading with his attorney and going over all the things he's gonna say?

Host: I think that it's because of the way that he is known to answer, and answer leaving himself a technical out. But for some reason the American people buy it. No, I take that back. I don't believe they do buy it. I believe they don't buy it and act like they do, which is so much worse. But he always leaves himself a technical out, a technicality in the answers. But I think that the questions by Ken Starr are going to have to be so specific and so graphic that what's gonna happen -- well, I'm sure that they're gonna be called inappropriate questions. But I think that Ken Starr has no choice, at this point in time, to ask, quote unquote, inappropriate questions. I certainly don't think they are inappropriate, but they're -- I imagine they'll be called that. A none-of-your-business type thing is gonna go on today because they are -- the papers and the media has made hints about, He may choose not to answer some questions that are very personal in nature. They're gonna have to get very, very personal, very direct, very graphic in order to find the truth. Or else it's gonna be another one of these, I did not have sexual relations... well, what I meant was: we did this, but we didn't do that.

Caller 4: See, the whole thing that really grinds me is how he can evade going to court, he can get linked up to these satellite things. The thing that grinds me about it is the whole principle. We can't do it. Nobody else that I know can do that, except for the president.

Host: That's right. You bet.

Caller 4: If I'm in court and an attorney asks me a question, I could not say, I plead the Fifth, because then, it's almost an admission of guilt. But if he somehow says, Well, I don't know or I plead the Fifth, or he makes some rigamarole to say, then somehow it's gonna be OK. It's the whole principle of it. If he -- if we elect him to be our president, then whatever he can do I think we should be able to do.

Host: I certainly agree with you. I certainly agree with you. We've gotta take a break. We do have an update from ABC News coming up during this break so pay attention to it. Thank you for calling.

Caller 4: Thank you.

Host: I appreciate you. Got the Rightgrrls today; got Carolyn Gargaro, Stephanie Herman -- they're on Birmingham, the Show. 267-1023. Thanks for listening today.

[commercial break / news update ]

Host: Newstalk Radio 102.3 Birmingham, the name of the show. I've got the Rightgrrls on with me today, the Rightgrrls website by and for conservative women. Carolyn Gargaro, Stephanie Herman, both on the line with me today. Thank you, girls, for being with us.

Stephanie: Our pleasure.

Host: Certainly do appreciate you. Once again, can you give me the URL, the website for the Rightgrrls?

Carolyn: It's www.rightgrrl.com and "rightgrrl" is spelled R-I-G-H-T-G-R-R-L.

Host: There's no "I" in "grrl," an extra "R."

Carolyn: Nope, it's "grrrrrrl."

Host: "Grrrrrrrl." OK, I got it. Hello caller.

Caller 4: Hello, Stephanie.

Host: Hi there.

Caller 5: I wanted to make a point about the Paula Jones decision. That case was dismissed not because of -- she couldn't prove that Clinton sexually harassed her. It was dismissed because she could not prove that she had been injured in any way --

Host: Right.

Caller 5: -- you know, not being able to be promoted or, you know, caused problems on her job because she said, "No."

Host: So what are you saying, sexual harassment is OK as long as it doesn't injure your job?

Caller 5: Well, no, I'm just saying that you and your guests seem to think that, you know, that was the point of the dismissal. I'm not saying that it was OK.

Host: Well, no actually --

Caller 5: -- [inaudible] I'm gonna think about what you're saying about the reasons that it was dismissed.

Host: I've said for a long time the very same thing. I have asked the same question. But, you know, why -- how was she harmed? Was her job in danger? Was she actually threatened? Was she physically forced to do anything? And the answer to those, perhaps, is no. So I have raised the same questions.

Caller 5: Well that's what I pretty much said at this end. Somebody's paid millions of dollars for her lawyer. Somebody's paid millions of dollars for her to have a nose job.

Host: A million-dollar nose job? Hmm.

Carolyn: I'd like to address a couple points on that issue. And the caller made a quick point that one reason that the case was dismissed was because the judge did not believe that she was -- that what President Clinton allegedly did was sexual harassment. That does not make him not telling the truth in a deposition OK, but that was one point that it does decide that a woman can be called into what is really her superior's office and he can touch her and drop his pants and that's OK and that's not harassing.

Host: So why would she say that if Clinton denied it?

Carolyn: That's right. Actually, to make a summary judgment, as the judge did, she had to assume that the allegations were true, which is actually ironic. I do want to also address the caller's pointing out about the millions of dollars spent for Paula Jones' legal funds and for the millions of dollars for the nose job, etc. There's been quite a lot of money spent on the Clinton fund also. The money spent for Paula Jones has been -- a lot of the work has been done pro bono from the lawyers. A lot of the money was donated. In fact, the reason she got a nose job was somebody anonymously donated the money. And everybody wants to seem to like fly away from the issue and say, Oh she's just getting all this money. She's not getting all this money. And people want to focus on that rather than the fact that this woman could have been sexually harassed. Just like people want to get away from the fact that Clinton might have committed perjury -- they want to say, Oh well, it's all about sex. It's not.

Caller 5: All I know is the lady come out with a big nice condo and a BMW.

Carolyn: She lives in a condo with her husband and children.

Caller 5: She doesn't make that much money.

Host: What does she do for a living?

Carolyn: If she has a condo, does that mean that what was done to her is OK?

Caller 5: No, it's not OK. But every woman that I know and I am 50 years old and I have been in the work force for a lot of years. And I know of no woman that has not had to put up with sexual harassment.

Carolyn: But does that make it OK?

Caller 5: It does not make it OK --

Carolyn: My mother has been in the work force --

Caller 5: -- but when you profit from it --

Carolyn: -- for just as probably as long as you have and she's told me stories of times when people made inappropriate comments, and right, yes, people have put up with it. But does that make it right? And has every woman gone into the boss's office and had him expose himself to her? There's a difference between people joking and people making comments and someone dropping his pants.

Caller 5: Well, number one, he wasn't her boss.

Carolyn: He was like the elected CEO of a company. It's not her direct boss, but he worked for the Arkansas government. He was the governor. He was her, really, her top boss -- not her direct boss, but her top boss. So if a CEO called a lower-level female employee into his office and did what Clinton allegedly did, is that OK?

Caller 5: I didn't say and I never have said, and I do not approve of it, but it happens. And regardless of what Paula Jones has done with her case, regardless of what the Supreme Court says about sexual harassment, it's a part of life that women will have to live with and they will always have to live with.

Host: Well, and I agree with you on one thing --

Caller 5: -- [inaudible] should profit from --

Carolyn: And you should not -- if someone makes an inappropriate comment you shouldn't go have a fit. You need to be strong and you have to deal with that thing. But there is a point where you need to take a stand and say, This is not appropriate. She has a right to a trial and that is what she did and a lot of people seem to have a problem with the fact that she, you know, brought this up. And I really don't see why she has any less of a right to a trial than anybody else.

Host: I agree with you. And when we say that it's something that women are gonna have to live with I agree that it's something that women -- well, and people -- are gonna have to live with, but don't you think that we can maybe try to start taking some steps to stop it, starting with the President, if he did it? Because it's like she said, the judge would have to be actually conceding that the allegations are true for her to have done the summary judgment that she did.

Caller 5: Well I, you know, I'm not saying that I don't think that Clinton did that.

Host: Are you upset because she's living in a nice place and driving a nice car? I mean, I don't know where she got it. I don't know if people are just handing her money. Maybe her husband works hard for a living and they have a nice car and have a nice home. They said about her nose job that was an anonymous donor who did that for her. That wasn't money that she pulled --

Caller 5: The last I read her husband doesn't even have a job.

Host: Well I don't know. I can't back that up either way because I don't know.

Carolyn: I honestly don't know. At this point, I have not followed the case closely in the last few weeks. I don't know either.

Host: I think Anita Hill has profited wildly from what happened to her.

Carolyn: She makes a lot of money for speaking engagements.

Host: Oh, you bet. She's wined and dined all over the country, gets huge sums of money. She's gonna be OK for the rest of her life, Anita Hill is, because of what she did. Yet I don't hear people screaming about Anita Hill. Could it be because the person she accused was a Republican? It just depends -- people, they can choose who they're going to back, for the same thing, sexual harassment. They'll back one but they won't back another simply depending on who did the harassing, and you know that's true.

Caller 5: Well, I agree with you on that. But Anita Hill was already doing speaking engagements and was already like a top-level person before all that took place.

Host: Well, you may be right. I appreciate you phoning in.

Caller 5: Thank you.

Host: Thank you. 267-1023. 1-888-779-TALK. I'm on with the Rightgrrls, URL www.rightgrrl -- and that's spelled R-I-G-H-T-G-R-R-L -- .com, www.rightgrrl.com. We've got Carolyn Gargaro, Stephanie Herman, we'll be right back.

[commercial break]

Host: It is Birmingham the show, Talk Radio 102.3. We are with the Rightgrrls today. Carolyn Gargaro, Stephanie Herman. They are the founders of Rightgrrl's their organization. It's for conservative women, the website that you can go to, www.rightgrrl.com. You need to go visit it and ladies I do have some more questions for you but we've got packed phones right now and I want to go to these people before the break OK? Still with me?

Carolyn: Yes we are.

Host: OK. Hello caller, how're you doing?

Caller 6: I'm doing fine. Anybody ever notice he already lied?

Host: Oh yeah.

Caller 6: I mean, it's like isn't the most obvious thing that he said that he didn't have anything going on with Gennifer Flowers and then he had to retract that when he was deposed for Paula Jones?

Host: Yeah.

Caller 6: So, he's already lied about having had sex with somebody --

Host: But you're not supposed to think that. You're supposed to think that all the women are lying.

Caller 6: No, no, no, no, no. I'm fat and homely and whatever else and I had a boss years ago who was good friends with my mother, about the same age, who thought it was cool to come up when I was at the copier and run his hand down my back.

Host: Oh cute.

Caller 6: He's real lucky that my mother was working for the company and needed to be able to retire in peace and quiet or I'da decked the "bleep." OK?

Host: Yes.

Caller 6: Also, let's face it: Hillary Clinton, "I'm not some stand-by-my-man woman."

Host: I remember that.

Caller 6: Excuse me? If she wasn't, then the minute he'd said, Yes, I was screwing around with Gennifer Flowers, she'da walked.

Host: Well, we're going to dispel that big rumor right now. Certainly, I'm not inside the home of the President and the First Lady, but if anybody calls one more time and says, Well that's between the President and Hillary and if she really thought he was doing it she'da kicked him out, you need to wake up. You need to wake up.

Caller 6: No, I'm not saying --

Host: No, no, I'm not talking to you.

Caller 6: Oh, OK.

Host: I'm talking to everybody else. Calm down. I just mean people who say that, people who call in and say this is their issue: Hillary obviously doesn't believe it because she woulda kicked him out. Oh, bullcrap. She wouldn't have kicked him out for that.

Caller 6: No, she's got a power thing.

Host: You bet.

Caller 6: She's got a power thing, which is why she's putting up with it. But the thing that I'm reminded of with all of this is when one James Earl Carter was interviewed for Playboy and he admitted to having lusted in his heart and everybody laughed. And this guy was about as honest and straightforward and all the rest of it as you want. I mean, he was mister boy scout. And now, in retrospect, he's being looked at as one of the most exemplary examples of a president we've ever had. Why can't we see about finding somebody else of that caliber of moral --

Host: I agree with you. I'm not crazy about what I know -- I can't really remember Carter's presidency. It was just the novelty of somebody being from the south and his daughter was about my age. But as far as that I don't remember except what I read. But what I do know is that when people say name a president who hasn't been a philanderer I frequently -- I think Carter was. I can't swear to it.

Caller 6: I believe he was and you know, I look at Roslyn Carter and I get the feeling that she would've thrown him out because she wasn't on a power trip.

Host: She very well may have. I don't think Reagan was.

Caller 6: I don't think Reagan was -- I also don't think Truman was, but --

Host: Well, we don't know. I appreciate the call.

Caller 6: Take care.

Host: Yeah, thanks a lot. Talk Radio 102.3, hello caller.

Caller 7: I wonder how he got the name "Slick Willie."

Host: I don't know.

Caller 7: I tell you what. Anybody believes that it's normal for another man to butt-slam another man and I believe that's what Clinton does to Al Gore. I'll always believe that. And I hope and I assure you he's gonna come out as "Slick Willie."

Host: Well, I'm thinking there's about a 50 percent chance that you're right.

Caller 7: Everybody's gonna learn how he got his name "Slick Willie."

Host: I appreciate your call. Thanks for calling. Talk Radio 102.3. We're on with the Rightgrrls. Taking a break and we'll be right back. WGOW-FM Chattanooga.

[news break, top of the hour]