Diane Sawyer with the women of the U.S. Senate. (Photo: ABC/Martin Simon)

Yesterday, a record 20 women were sworn in to the U.S. Senate. To mark the occasion ABC's World News With Diane Sawyer had all of the female senators on for a group interview. One of the major topics of the discussion was the belief of many of the senators that they achieve better results than their male colleagues on a variety of issues including the budget, immigration reform and climate change. Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow got the ball rolling when she suggested women are more inclined to get results by working in a bipartisan manner.

"It was the first time in 2001 when we had enough women to actually be on every committee, to have a woman's voice, a woman's experience [and] a woman's values on every committee. You fast forward to now, the new year. There will be six of us chairing committees and other women in the ranking member spot," Ms. Stabenow said. "And I think the public understands to get things done, we're the ones that want to work across the aisle to do that."

Maine Senator Susan Collins took the argument a step further by saying if women were in charge of the Senate and in the White House there would be a solution to the budget debate that has gripped Washington.

"I think if we were in charge of the Senate and of the administration that we would have a budget deal by now," Ms. Collins said. 

When New Hampshire's Kelly Ayotte weighed in, she backed away from Ms. Collins' point and said she was't sure a Senate and Executive branch controlled by women would have completed a budget deal.

"Well, I think that--you know, women are great problem solvers," said Ms. Ayotte. "I don't know if it would get done, but I know that the people here are committed to making sure that we solve our problems."

Ms. Sawyer pressed the point and asked how that was "different" from the male senators. Ms. Ayotte disagreed with the assertion women would be better problem solvers in the Senate than men.

"I think to say that men aren't focused on solving problems wouldn't--wouldn't be accurate," Ms. Ayotte said.

Ms. Collins stepped back in to defend her point.

"Let me just finish my thought on that," said Ms. Collins. "What I find is with all due difference to--deference to our male colleagues, that women's styles tend to be more collaborative."

Later on in the interview, Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski said she believes women bring a "sense of timeliness" to the Senate that is not shared by their male colleagues.

"I can tell you every single one of these women has great pressure on them not only for their constituents, but their families. We don't believe in the culture of delay," Ms. Mikulski said. "In this institution if they can delay a problem, pick an argument--and wait till next year they'll do it. Us, we want to get it done. And I think that's the impact when women are chairing these committees to involve, to listen, mutual respect, mutual trust and get the job done."

Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu cited a specific issue where she felt the female perspective was advantageous--immigration reform.

"I'll give you a specific on immigration reform. And I think this could come naturally to us. There's a big issue right now about S.T.E.M., about science, technology, engineering and math and extending immigration visas for doctoral candidates," said Ms. Landrieu. "When I first heard that I thought it was a great idea. But my thought was, 'I wonder about their spouses. Are they gonna get visas as well?' I mean, I don't know if a man would have thought of that. I mean, I think a perspective--when we're doing immigration reform we're thinking of not just the individuals...the visa but the family, their relationships with children or with....I think that's just one example. There could be many more. But without a woman at the table that might not come up. It could, but it may not. I think it comes up more quickly."

Ms. Sawyer went on to ask the assembled female senators whether any of them might be future presidents. Washington's Patty Murray responded that women would bring a different outlook to a presidential campaign than men.

"I think the thing is--is that every man wakes up in the morning and looks in the mirror and says, 'I could be president,'" Ms. Murray said. "I think every woman looks in the mirror and says, 'What can I get done for my country today?'"

California Senator Dianne Feinstein chimed in to say that having less testosterone makes female politicians more effective.

"I think one of the things that we have done throughout our career is earned a portfolio of expertise. We have worked our way up, we have done our apprenticeship. We understand how government should function and we want to play a role toward that positive functioning. This is one of the reasons I think women become effective originally, that they can sound that call," said Ms. Feinstein. "Another reason I think, you know, we're less on testosterone. We don't have that need to always be confrontational. And I think we're problem solvers, and I think that's what this country needs."

Ms. Feinstein continued by suggesting climate change is another issue women in the Senate may make more progress on than men have.

"I was just gonna say one other thing. If you take a big issue that men have not been able to solve, it's the issue of climate change," she explained. "What would happen if 20 of us cosponsored a bill? What would happen if we went out and mobilized American women to support that bill? It may...this may be a real point of major differentiation that we could get this done for America and essentially lead the way."

Wisconsin's Tammy Baldwin concurred that women might be able to make more progress on climate change because of their "unique capability" to think about future generations.

"On that topic, I think that there's unique capability of being able to think about the effect of our actions today on generations hence that women share," Ms. Baldwin said. "We have that long range vision."

Watch Ms. Sawyer's full interview with the senators below.

Residents of Maine and Maryland voted to legalize gay marriage. It was the first time same-sex marriage was approved by voters rather than being legalized in a legislature, as it was in New York in 2010. As of this writing, a gay marriage referendum was also leading in Washington, which rejected same sex marriage in 2009.

Along with the wins for gay marriage, Democrat Tammy Baldwin became the first openly gay U.S. Senator with her win in Wisconsin. Here in New York, the state gained an openly gay congressman in the Hudson Valley after Democrat Sean Patrick Maloney defeated Republican incumbent Nan Hayworth in the 18th district.

Colorado and Washington became the first states to legalize the production sale and possession of medical marijuana for recreational use. Massachusetts also legalized marijuana for medical use. Despite these victories for marijuana advocates, a recreational marijuana initiative failed in Oregon, as did a medical marijuana proposal in Arkansas. Montana also voted to make its medical marijuana laws more restrictive. However, In spite of these setbacks the passage of bills legalizing marijuana for recreational purposes was a major landmark for advocates of the substance.

John Hickenlooper, the governor of Colorado, initially opposed his state's medical marijuana initiative. However, on NBC he indicated that, though the drug is still illegal federally, his state would at least "want to decriminalize it" in the wake of last night's vote. Mr. Hickenlooper also issued a statement indicating his desire to "respect" the wishes of voters.

"The voters have spoken and we have to respect their will," Mr. Hickenlooper said. "This will be a complicated process, but we intend to follow through. That said, federal law still says marijuana is an illegal drug, so don’t break out the Cheetos or gold fish too quickly."

Professor Susan Grogan in a photo that accompanied the press release about her Super PAC.

Susan Grogan, who has been a political science professor at St. Mary’s College of Maryland for over two decades, formed the amusingly named "We Just Want Stephen Colbert To Come To Our College Super PAC" two days ago. We reached out to Professor Grogan to ask about her political action committee and she responded with a lengthy press release that referenced her "small turtle collection" and challenged Mr. Colbert to dance while maintaining her PAC would be "more serious" than his.

"I recently formed 'We Just Want Stephen Colbert To Come To Our College SuperPac' for several reasons. First and foremost, it is to advocate for the voter, to promote responsible voter behavior, and to enhance student engagement in voting and encouraging others to vote," Ms. Grogan wrote. "It may seem that the name of my Super PAC has little to do with its purpose. In part, I intended this as a satirical remark on the lack of transparency that is the case with so many Super PACs. More so, it is advised to give your Super PAC a catchy name to improve your chances of success."

Ms. Grogan says she doesn't "have time to watch much TV," but she "generally" watches Mr. Colbert's Comedy Central show, The Colbert Report after watching The Daily Show. She decided to include Mr. Colbert's name in her PAC after taking note of his "Americans For A Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow" Super PAC, which has raised over $1 million.

"Another Super PAC associated with the name 'Stephen Colbert' comically raised over one million dollars in short order. Being perhaps typical of college professors, I am somewhat short on creative ideas of my own. I tend to appropriate those of creative geniuses....Thus, I decided to follow Stephen Colbert’s lead. (To Stephen Colbert—Let’s dance.)," Ms. Grogan wrote (emphasis hers).

Though Mr. Colbert inspired Professor Grogan's Super PAC, she has some criticisms of his work and vows her political action committee to be "more serious." Specifically, Ms. Grogan takes issue with a treasure hunt Mr. Colbert's Super PAC hosted where he encouraged college students to search for a "a 101-year-old sterling silver antique turtle" he planted somewhere in the country.

"My hope is to siphon off the donations that otherwise might be given to the court jester toward a more serious purpose than, say, sending students off on 'Treasure Hunts' in pursuit of folly or silver turtles," wrote Professor Grogan. "While I do have a small turtle collection (about 6—I am not all that avid a collector of anything), and could appreciate Colbert’s so-called treasure of an old silver turtle trinket, what I would rather have students do than Colbert’s Treasure Hunt is to inscribe themselves with the motto of 'We Just Want Stephen Colbert To Come To Our College Super Pac' which is: 'Treasure None But Your Vote.'"

Despite her differences with Mr. Colbert, Ms. Grogan says she admires him and she does indeed want him to come to her college because of the attention he has brought to campaign finance issues.

"Of course, I would love to have Stephen Colbert come to our college as a speaker, as would most any other small college. Citizens United and other court decisions have made 2012 the Election of the Independent Expenditure," Ms. Grogan wrote. "Stephen Colbert has brought widespread attention to this problem in starting up Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow—in keeping with the finest traditions of political satire. This is an example as to why I admire him, why I’d like to have him speak at our college."

Professor Grogan hopes her PAC will attract Mr. Colbert to her school, but she also made sure to point out "We Just Want Stephen Colbert To Come To Our College SuperPac is not affiliated with St. Mary’s College of Maryland."

Currently the PAC does have a website, www.wejustwantstephencolberttocometoourcollegesuperpac.org, but there's not much there beyond a note that "it's summer break" on the contact page.

We included Professor Grogan's full press release below so you can experience it in its full glory.

Mitt Romney campaigning in Wisconsin last weekend. (Photo: Getty)

After Mitt Romney's victories in the Wisconsin, Maryland and District of Columbia presidential primaries last night, he has more than half the delegates he needs to lock up the Republican nomination. According to Mr. Romney's press secretary, Andrea Saul, President Barack Obama has taken notice of Mitt's momentum. In an email to supporters sent after his three wins last night, Ms. Saul said the president is turning to negative ads because it's clear "Americans across the nation are rallying around Mitt's positive vision and plan for our country."

"Mitt is well on his way to the nomination. And given the sudden increase in excuses and blame from President Obama, it's apparent President Obama's team is aware of that as well," Ms. Saul said.

As evidence the president is noticing her candidate, Ms. Saul cited a recent ad in which the Obama campaign accuses Mr. Romney of being beholden to "Big Oil.

"President Obama dipped into his soon-to-be $1 billion war chest yesterday to air an ad talking about high gas prices. And guess who he blamed? Mitt Romney. Does the President honestly believe Americans are that naïve?" Ms. Saul wrote. "He is the President of the United States. He is responsible for high gas prices, an anemic economic recovery, record home foreclosures, and trillions in debt on his watch. There are a lot of qualities that you look for in a president -- blaming other people is not one of them."

Ms. Saul finished her email by warning her readers to "get used to these types of ads from the Obama political machine" because "this is how they will run their campaign."

"And this is why they'll lose," she added.

Like almost all messages from political campaigns, Ms. Saul's email ends with a request for donations.