I think it demonstrates a certain unappealing contemptuousness and elitism to presuppose that attractive people can't also be intelligent, that people who take their jobs seriously also have to be super-serious about themselves, or that people who watch The McLauglin Group or Charlie Rose can't also TiVO Entertainment Tonight or the Daily Show, nor could they pick up a copy of Glamour Magazine when they've finished The Economist.  This listing from the Hill was first mentioned with respect to Sen. Webb's communications director, who made the list.  I do not know her personally; however, based on Webb's performance in the past 60 days, taking a more-active role compared with other freshman Senators and especially considering his performance on MTP against Sen. Graham, I'm inclined to think she's doing a good job keeping the senator visible and on message.

I also take her at her word when she says she's flattered to make the list.  I've yet to meet a human being to wasn't flattered that someone else thought he or she was attractive.

In summary, then, to answer your question "am I wrong to expect more?" I would say no.  Instead, I think you're wrong because you apparently couldn't expect less.

I definitely agree that just because you are one of the best looking people on the Hill does not mean you can't be more than just a pretty face. The reason to lambast the list is the fact that there aren't any other lists that actually point to accomplishments. I mean, what does looking good have to do with doing meaningful work for a member of Congress or their constituents? I think staffers would be more flattered to be on a list of "Authors of Most Innovative legislation" or "Constituent Liaison Superstars" or "Across-the-Aisle Deal Brokers". Who cares if they look good? As many have said before anyway, Washington is just Hollywood for ugly people. This list is just there to make them feel more Hollywood. 

First, could someone define "hottie"? Is this what in the old days nearly all men called "a piece of ass"? In other words, it's just a kinder, gentler, and more politically correct way (ploy) of focusing on someone's sexuality.
Are there any liberated men or women out there? Yoo Hoo!

Not to repeat myself, but the younger generation's obsession with visual images, sexuality and "looks as status" is very disappointing to say the least, especially when it comes at the expense of serious debate on national issues.
If any of you have ever worked on the Hill you know what I meant by my earlier comments in the prior diary about the Capital Hill Most Beautiful list.
With all due respect and congratulations to our Junior Senator's Communications Director, this focus on the superficial versus the substantive is systemic and is just another sign of a decadent society unable to find its way. Hill Staff eem to reflect a feeling that we can't do the serious job we need to legislating so let's just play like teenagers. I don't care if you play like teenagers after hours, but don't spread this misguided notion of style over substance in the crux of our democracy.
Just to give you a little background, here's my earlier post expanded a bit.

Is this for real?? 
Am I missing something here?
I'm amazed that Capital Hill staff actually go for this sort of stuff. I thought they're all so busy with their jobs (and significant others if they have them) that they wouldn't have a minute for such ridiculous and sophomoric behavior. I don't think the Hill has changed that much since I worked there a few years ago and, yes, even though it's a proud and historic place to work the fact is:
Capital Hill is the last plantation. Laws that apply to the rest of America literally don't apply on Capital Hill. I'm not kidding. Hill offices are exempt from many/most/all(?) federal laws--fOR EXAMPLE
-No OHSA regulations apply, I found that out when I smashed my head into a pulled out filing cabinet right over my desk and had to get stitches. No OHSA regulations apply to Hill office overcrowding.
-Privacy regulations don't apply; I found that out when I returned to my office after hours one evening to find a couple agents (CIA?) on the floor with the phone jack disassembled. They were apparently installing bugs in our Senator's office phone lines (he had just brought in an Executive Intern from the CIA so I guess they wanted to follow him closely).
-Certainly sexual harrassment and sex discrimination  regulations don't apply. Without incriminating anyone, I'll only say I witnessed numerous passes, inappropriate comments and other activities that in the real world would spark DOZENS of law suits. My relatively liberal and liberated Senator/boss would regularly, after hearings, make comments like, "Who was that blond in the front row this morning? Ask her to come see me."
--Finally federal employment compensation (minimum wage etc.) guidelines don't apply--Members pay their staff whatever they want to--some staff are even volunteers-- but I know I was underpaid, along with a lot of others, for the legislative staff work I was doing ($15k/year for law school graduates!)
I'd like to see someone contradict these points,(any Hill staff listening?) but otherwise I know in the recent past the Hill was the last plantation, and barring evidence to the contrary, it still is. I believe most informed Washington insiders will agree. And, BTW, I'm not kidding.

I agree about the Redskins cheerleader!  At what point does the Hot List turn into The Hill's swimsuit issue?

In fact, let's take the argument one step further.  How would you feel if a member of Congress or staffer posed for Playboy?  Should they be flattered people found them so attractive?  After all, it IS very Hollywood.

yourself much too seriously. 

People have been enjoying attractive men and women since the beginning of time so I don't see the big deal.  Some men and women are just born attractive.  My only question is I thought for sure Lowell would be on the list.  Maybe next year.