GQ’s Top 25 Most Powerful in DC Includes 1.5 Women and a Lot of White Guys

GQ’s Top 25 Power People in DC? One and a half women. One and a half. And a whole lotta white guys.

Here’s the full list of 50 from Mike Allen’s Politico Playbook:

FIRST LOOK – GQ’s “The 50 Most Powerful People in Washington (People with the last names Obama and Biden not included,” by Reid Cherlin, Rob Fischer, Jason Horowitz and Jason Zengerle: 1) Eric Cantor 2) Mitch McConnell 3) David Plouffe 4) Leon Panetta 5) Hillary Clinton 6) Ben Bernanke 7) David Petraeus 8) Kevin McCarthy 9) Pete Rouse 10) U.S. Chamber’s Tom Donohue 11) Tim Geithner 12) John Boehner 13) Karl Rove, Ed Gillespie, Steven Law (American Crossroads) 14) Tommy Boggs, chairman, Patton Boggs 15) Dan Pfeiffer 16) Gene Sperling and Jack Lew 17) Chuck Schumer 18) Grover Norquist 19) Chuck Todd 20) Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser and speechwriter, and brother David Rhodes, president of CBS News 21) Paul Ryan 22) Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough 23) Heather and Tony Podesta 24) Chris Van Hollen 25) Paul Clement, partner, Bancroft

26) Jim DeMint 27) White House Counsel Kathy Ruemmler 28) Joe Pounder, RNC research director 29) Rep. Tim Scott 30) White House Personnel Director Nancy Hogan 31) Brian Deese, deputy director, White House National Economic Council 32) Education Secretary Arne Duncan 33) Jake Sullivan, State Department director of policy planning 34) Ezra Klein 35) White House Director of Legislative Affairs Rob Nabors 36) Bill Daley 37) Patty Murray 38) Capital Weather Gang bloggers 39) Liz Cheney 40) Mike Allen 41) restaurateur José Andrés 42) party planners Jayne Sandman, Barbara Martin, Svetlana Legetic 43) Marco Rubio 44) White House Social Secretary Jeremy Bernard 45) Charles Krauthammer 46) MPAA Chairman Chris Dodd 47) Washington Nationals pitcher Stephen Strasburg 48) Jack Quinn 49) restaurateur James Alefantis, owner of Comet Ping Pong, Buck’s Fishing & Camping 50) Bradley Graham and Lissa Muscatine, owners, Politics & Prose.

Pathetic. Not even necessarily on GQ although I’d levy that claim without much sweat. But pathetic re: those who can appoint, who can make power and influence reside in whomever they choose.

And the number of women in the second half doubles primarily because three women party plan together.

Sigh.

The Ginsberg video should go in everyone’s sidebar until we get better numbers on these things.

Cross-posted from Writes Like She Talks.

18 Comments

  1. Depressing. I wish I’d never come of age during the 60′s, my expectations would be so much more mundane and un-evolved. What a crock.

  2. I hear you, but don’t you ever wonder (as I do all the time), what if things were reversed? How would [fill in the blank] handle it to be in the minority?

    Which is really what Ginsberg’s comment is about. There were all men alone on the Sup Court for something like 190 years before the first woman. What if it had been all women alone for all that time? Or all blacks? Or all gays? And when it comes to gender, you can’t argue anything about proportionality – women have always been close to or above 50% of the population in this country.

    Ok – now I’m depressing me! ;)

  3. Not enough black people. In fact NONE!

  4. As we say on Twitter, Allen: #diversityfail – big time

  5. Well, if there were 9 women on the supreme ct I would certainly have no problem with it, nor should anyone who was unconcerned by an all male supreme court for so incredibly long. That said, the ideal would be representation on the court roughly proportional to diversity among the citizenry. Anyway, I’m not really depressed, just disappointed.

  6. I suppose you’re going to say this explains why we’ve never had a woman President or Vice President!

    Oops.

  7. Yikes — where’s that post-racial post-feminist world I keep hearing about?

    Your thought experiment in the comments is really interesting to ponder, Jill.

  8. @The Ohioan – I don’t understand your comment – at all. There are a lot of reasons we have never had a female VP or Pres, but how GQ puts a list together regarding who has power in DC isn’t one of them. What’s your point?

  9. @Roro – well – the good news is that there ARE a number of orgs working to keep filling and flooding the pipeline – here’s an event happening tomorrow that will be live-streamed for those who’d like to watch:

    WHO: Former US Ambassador to Austria Swanee Hunt and
    former Lt. Governor of Massachusetts Kerry Healey, chair and co-chair
    of Political Parity, with four other highly experienced leaders
    working across the political spectrum.

    WHEN: Thursday, January 19, 2012 at 11 a.m. EST

    WHERE: The Edward Murrow Room

    National Press Club (529 14th Street NW). The event will be streamed
    live via Webcast for those outside the Beltway.
    Webcast Information:

    1. Register for the live webcast at http://bit.ly/xX6DZy.

    2. Visit http://bit.ly/xX6DZy at 11am EST to watch the webcast.

    3. You are encouraged to ask questions during the webcast that
    we will answer live at the event.

    WHY:
    · The United States ranks behind 87 other countries including
    Afghanistan, Ethiopia and Nepal in the percentage of women in
    parliament.

    · Women comprise just 16.8 percent of Congress, but 51 percent
    of the population.

    · 2012 has the potential to be a strong year for women in
    politics given the significant number of female candidates running for
    U.S. Senate.

  10. Thanks for the info, Jill!

  11. Jill

    It was a snark. The Oops was meant to convey that the reason for no P or VP is because of both the lack of power and GQ’s perception of the lack of power.

  12. Jill all women on the SC would be just fine with me. I’d prefer six of them black with one being my wife and two my mistresses. I’ve got a lot that needs to be heard.

  13. @The Ohioan – lol my oops then! Sorry about that- I’m notorious for not getting sarcasm, but especially when it’s on the internetz. Thanks. And I agree w/you

  14. Hmm – Allen – you have me thinking about what composition – who in particular – would we want on SCOTUS if we could choose anyone – not sure who my dream SCOTUS would be – but it sure as heck would be more diverse.

  15. Jill

    My minister once said sarcasm is always hostile.

    That being said, though I can’t seem to break the habit, I have tried to subdue it to the point that it is sometimes even too subtle to prick the person/thing it’s aimed at.

    I don’t know if that’s good or bad…

    As to the other; Allen, that’s an interesting question.

    I’d like to see Hillary Clinton on the SC. She is intelligent, aware of what true justice means, and would have reached the pinnacle of political ambition which would remove her from further ambitious folly – which is why I would never vote for her in any other political capacity.

  16. “I’d prefer six of them black with one being my wife and two my mistresses.”

    Classy as always, Allen.

  17. “A lot of old wealthy white Anglo-Saxon Protestant guys”

    C’mon, let’s have more reverse ism’s.

    Bonus (negative) points for “lily-white”, etc.

Submit a Comment