Palin was on with Kelly to discuss the National Organization for Women’s rebuke of Newsweek for running an unflattering photo of Rep. Michele Bachmann, which the group called “sexist.” While Palin was happy to see that NOW had defended Rep. Bachmann despite her beliefs, she couldn’t agree that the photo was sexist, and in fact seemed pleased that Rep. Bachmann was getting a bit of a Nixonian image-destruction treatment from the media. “Bottom line,” she told Kelly, “every candidate is going to be vetted.” “Some will interpret that because a female candidate will be vetted the same way as a man, or moreso, as sexist– I dont know if I’d characterize it as sexist,” Palin admitted, “I just characterize it as being the new normal– in a way it’s quite healthy.” Palin not only went as far as to call the cover, by proxy, “healthy,” but take a bit of a veiled swipe at Rep. Bachmann, insisting that in the 2012 elections, such vetting will be necessary to find someone who, among other traits, had the “executive experience” to govern.

Kelly then brought up criticisms from feminist icon Gloria Steinem, who argued that Palin and Bachmann had “sold out the women’s movement” and made their careers on being women “only a man could love.” Palin, unfazed, argued that Steinem seemed to have missed the train on 21st century feminism– which, without either the previous statements semi-supporting the Newsweek cover or her subsequent explanation, would have made for a laughable headline, at best. But Palin actually backed up her claims with some substance, as a career woman who had risen to international recognition against the odds herself. “I think Gloria Steinem has evidently had her day… it’s over, it’s very passe,” she said of her comments. As women who “desire to serve something greater than self,” (and in this she recruited Kelly herself), “we are the women’s movement; we are illustrating equality.” Palin gave her predecessor credit for “adding some healthy debate back in the day,” but concluded that her opinion nowadays was moot, as “she does not share our views of women being able to do much more than she gives us credit for.”

At face value, it’s hard to disagree with Palin’s statement: that it’s “healthy” to see candidates vetted equally, and any evaluation of their efficacy as political icons that stems exclusively from an acknowledgment that their genitalia is the minority in politics, in 2011, should be “passé.” A woman running for office, one imagines, would much rather be lauded and smeared on their statements and political merits as harshly as any man would, and given what we’re seeing with Rick Perry, Rep. Bachmann would have an uphill battle arguing she’s getting it worse than anyone else. That’s not to say that Newsweek‘s cover is or is not sexist, or that lowest-common-denominator smears like the Telegraph‘s now-famous Bachmann corn dog photo don’t prove that not everyone has tossed gender tropes out of their political quivers. But the shift must begin with a demand from people like Palin not to be victimized, and as far as her comments here, she is doing just that. Palin even has a good argument that comparisons with Rep. Bachmann, who despite defying the 50/50 odds and being female, is an entirely different political breed, are now perfunctory are as sexist as any attack against either.

Palin goes out of her way to say vetting in 2012 requires finding a candidate with “executive experience;” Palin has proven to be a lead-from-the-front political voice with little need to learn to compromise or inform herself on what her peers– fellow governors– are thinking. Rep. Bachmann, with her attorney degree in the bag and experience in Congress, is extremely unyielding within the context of her job description, but legislating necessarily requires a different way of thinking. What’s more, even in the way the two women publicly muse on their randomly selected status as females they differ more than they agree. Palin went out of her way to defend Byron York‘s question to Rep. Bachmann about her wifely submissiveness while in Iowa, adding that she could “never imagine my husband telling me what to do” (Marcus Bachmann famously commanded his wife to study tax law, a subject she claimed to hate). They may be conservative and have brown hair, but nothing in the way their publicly discuss their wifely duties seems to align in a way that would permit Steinem to generalize in such a way.

The validity of attacks on Palin’s political prowess remains unaffected by claims that she is hurting the women’s movement, only unnecessarily obscured in a way that functions to Palin’s benefit. By highlighting some sort of abstract “women only a man could love” appeal, Steinem takes away from the plethora of entirely valid criticisms that give even many Republican pause about Palin– from her short time in an executive position to how fast and loose she seems to be with her understanding of complex issues, and Palin capitalized on that quite effectively here.

The segment via Fox News below:

Unlike many topics in which Maher gives finding an explanation a whirl, this time he left the floor almost fully open to his panel, baffled at the fact that it seems that the one thing that unites people across the world is anti-Semitism. “When you get people talking long enough,” he joked, “What comes out is ‘I don’t like the Jews.’” He seemed particularly confused at anti-Semitism in Libya, where anti-Gaddafi protesters called him a “Jew” as a pejorative and he replied with the same apparent insult.

The Washington Post‘s Ezra Klein had a simple answer: it’s the economy, stupid. He noted “serious economic undertones” in most of the examples Maher gave of anti-Semitism (Sheen’s rampage notwithstanding), though fellow panelist Gloria Steinem added that there were varying types of anti-Semitism and to target what she called “individual anti-Semitism” instead of the “institutional” variety– the kind that makes young children in the Middle East hate Jewish people from the get-go– would be a waste of efforts.

Maher agrees with his panelists but continues somewhat perplexed at the existence of the thread, despite Steinem’s, Klein’s, and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom‘s attempts at figuring it out.

The segment via HBO below:

Here’s what Steinem had to say about Sarah Palin‘s recent declaration that she is a feminist:

We’re free to call ourselves whatever we wish, but I think her calling herself a feminist has mostly to do with how many votes Hillary Clinton got in the presidential race. Yes, you can be a feminist who doesn’t agree with abortion, but you can’t be a feminist who says that other women can’t…to make it criminal and dangerous is not a feminist act.

As for how she feels about the rise of Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, and Nikki Haley, Steinem says “I support their right to be wrong. But the reason they are being put forward is because the women’s movement has been so successful…the Republican party saw how well Hillary Clinton did and is now fielding female candidates.”

Steinem also had this to say about why Hillary Clinton was given such a rough ride by the media during her 2008 presidential campaign:

We associate female authority with childhood, we think it’s appropriate to childhood and not to adult life and politics because we really haven’t seen it that much. And some people, especially men as we saw during this last election, men on camera felt regressed when they saw Hillary Clinton, a powerful woman, because the last time they saw a powerful woman they were eight.

Draw your own conclusions about how this analogy follows through to Sarah Palin. Watch the clip on Palin below. The whole 40 minute interview, which is with both Steinmen and Women’s Media Center president Jehmu Greene is worth your time and can be found here.

Watch CBS News Videos Online

What she didn’t get a chance to discuss, alas, is the recent surge of Republican female candidates (aka “momma grizzlies”) nor the one topic it would arguably be most interesting to hear her further expound upon, namely Sarah Palin. The lack of conversation on these matters was especially frustrating in light of the fact Steinem’s appearance coincided with news that Nikki Haley had successfully nabbed the Republican nomination for governor of South Carolina; if she wins she’ll be the first woman governor of that state.

Instead, the closest Colbert (who was, in his Colbert way, clearly enamored with his guest) came to the topic was to ask Steinem if she “felt proud” that the GOP was putting out “all the great ladies right now, I think that there are more Republican women holding office right now then there are Democrats.” Responded Steinem: “No, I don’t think so.” Meaning, no she doesn’t think those numbers add up. And that was it! For reasons unclear before Steinem had a chance to respond fully Colbert asked her if men and women had attained parity (no) and the conversation never got back to politics. Not only frustrating but a missed opportunity on Colbert’s part. Watch below. Side note: Steinem did note that more women had retained there jobs during this recession than man primarily because women are paid less…”don’t you think that’s a motive to work for equal pay?”

“But don’t underestimate the deep reservoirs of public disgust. If there is a double-dip recession, a long period of stagnation, a fiscal crisis, a terrorist attack or some other major scandal or event, the country could demand total change, creating a vacuum that only the tea party movement and its inheritors would be in a position to fill.”

– Five days into the new decade and David Brooks, in what sounds like some sort of preamble to Beyond the Thunderdome, is predicting that it will be known as the Tea Party Teens.

Sound scary? Brooks points out there is plenty of recent historical precedent to back this conclusion: “the way the hippies defined the 1960s; the feminists, the 1970s; the Christian conservatives, the 1980s. American history is often driven by passionate outsiders who force themselves into the center of American life.” Which technically,yes, are all examples of ideas “associated with the educated class” gone sour. That said, I would love to see David Brooks to tell Gloria Steinem to her face that she was a precursor to the Tea Partiers.

And what a fifty years! The opening chapter is packed with enough jaw-dropping anecdotes about the restricted lives women lead that it’s hard to believe so much change could occur in one lifetime, though thanks in part to the recent success (obsession for some) of Mad Men, the first hundred pages of the book function as a sort of companion piece to the show. You can read more on the book here. In the meantime, Collins was nice enough to take time out to answer Mediaite’s 5QQ (five quick questions). Enjoy.

1. How do you get your first news of the day?

I download a digest version of the Times and listen to it on the way to work.

2. The “either, or” question (you gotta pick one!):

Stewart or Colbert?
Colbert

Twilight or Buffy?
Buffy

Albany or D.C.?
D.C.

Palin or Bachmann?
Palin has certainly given me more columns although Michele is coming up there.

Eleanor Roosevelt or Gloria Steinem?
Gloria would want me to say Eleanor Roosevelt.

Peggy Olson or Joan Halloway?
Peggy.

3. What’s the biggest story the media has missed this year (or last week)?

I’m part of the media. If I thought there was a big thing we missed, I should write a column about it, not complain about it.

4. Obligatory Twitter question: Describe yourself in 140 characters or less (hash tag optional).

Columnist and writer of women’s history books currently in mental meltdown over twitter assignment.

5. Are you nervous or excited about the future of Journalism? Why?

Excited. The next generation is going to get to make a whole new thing. I’ve got total confidence reporting will continue to go on, and actually get better on the state and local level. And there will be entirely new ways of writing that will be appropriate to the internet. It’s going to be amazing for young journalists. But in the near term, try to find a spouse who has good health insurance.

Feminist activist Gloria Steinem suggested that women get together regularly to discuss their communal and individual roles. This gathering, it seemed, served that purpose for many in attendance. It provided a place for them to express their anger, frustration, doubt and confusion over modern-day feminism.

The audience was comprised of mostly women. They shared in the discussion, actively engaging through the night, nodding along with panelists’ points, clapping, and voicing audible agreement to express their approval. In certain ways, Steinem and the other panelists were tasked with setting the agenda and the discussion for the hundreds of assembled women to consider, reflect on and debate.

Farai Chideya represented a younger generation of feminism than Steinem and Gail Collins. Chideya said that the expectations thrust on her and her peers have led to disappointment and disillusionment among women. Steinem suspected that current female unhappiness could be tied into this reality. Steinem’s movement bred pride, pleasure and strength that today’s women don’t experience as prominently.

There’s new ground to be broken, they agreed. While Steinem didn’t think Hillary Clinton stood a chance of winning last year, she said it did allow Americans to imagine the possibility of a female President. She suspected, though, that that candidate will come on the conservative side where she’d be able to “sell out” instead of “represent.”

As they looked to the future, they considered both the benefits and drawbacks of technology. Steinem pointed to the power of mommy bloggers to get their voice out. Chideya worried about how social media will inhibit teenage girls from forming their identities since every picture and comment is stored.

And then they turned the microphones over to the audience who solicited advice and shared their thoughts and impressions. The Q&A was only the start, as conversation continued afterwards when people headed out the doors. We suspect the discussion is continuing on today as last night’s crowd assembles friends and colleagues for their own audiences.

What They Said
“I think that as women we spend so much time trying to change ourselves, and that’s exhausting.”
– Farai Chideya urges women to develop the confidence to compete and succeed

“The times I’m happiest don’t have to do with accomplishment but they have to do with feeling connected.”
– Gloria Steinem says that first and foremost you have to be secure with yourself within a community

“I think if you go to the Rayburn Building (link to http://www.aoc.gov/cc/cobs/rhob.cfm) you encounter more sexism than at strip clubs.”
– Farai Chideya believes that the government hasn’t done enough to promote equal rights and fair treatment for women

“I used to work at New York Magazine where they said ‘You write like a man’ and I was like ‘Thank you.’”
– Gloria Steinem reflects on how much she’s learned and changed since her twenties

“Good sex is feminist. Bad sex is just bad sex.”
– Farai Chideya recruited a lot of new feminists

What We Thought

• Collins added some relevant stories from her years of interviewing women of all ages and backgrounds. She didn’t just lead the talk with questions, she contributed to it with cogent points based on real examples.
• Steinem put a cheerful twist on the storm over today’s teens’ revealing clothing. She said that only in equal societies can women uncover like that and still feel safe.
• We enjoyed the panel’s discussion about how women rely heavily on persuasion to dictate their effectiveness in the workplace. Steinem says that she regrets being so nice and cordial. It’s what led women to rely on what they knew already instead of going after something different.

PANEL RULES!
Some audience behavior seems to repeat itself panel after panel. We’ll be updating a running list of “PANEL RULES!” that will help ensure that you are not the dweeb of the Panel Nerds.

Panel Nerds don’t like…Maling It In
Gloria Steinem is famous for her efforts in the 1960s and 1970s in making progress for equal rights. At that same time, Abbie Hoffman was leading the Yippies. Just because the two may have crossed paths at the 1968 Chicago democratic convention doesn’t mean that Steinem has feelings about Hoffman or his movement today. There’s no need to ask about him, especially at an event focused on women’s issues. You were the lone man to ask a question at the panel and your question was way off-base. What’s that say about men and feminism today?