Why are we still talking about female candidates’ ambition as if it’s a bad thing?

There's nothing wrong with Kamala Harris's hunger for success.

Good morning, Broadsheet readers! Dany Garcia is the first woman to co-own a sports league, Black women are called to run for office in Minnesota, and—believe it or not—we’re still talking about whether it’s okay for female politicians to be ambitious. Have a thoughtful Thursday.

– ‘Too ambitious.‘ With Joe Biden expected to announce his vice presidential pick any day now, there’s no shortage of gossip and speculation about who might get the nod—and who’s rooting for whom behind the scenes.

Sen. Kamala Harris is widely believed to be a top contender, and apparently that’s a problem for some in Biden’s circles. Why? Not because they see the California senator as lacking experience, or because she and presumptive nominee differ on important issues. Nope—it’s reportedly because they think Harris ultimately has her eye on the presidential prize. In other words, she is, yes, too ambitious.

Well, here we are! It’s 2020, and we’re still worrying about women who dare show their hunger for success. The whole thing is especially silly given that Harris recently wrapped up a run for president, so she hasn’t exactly been keeping her aspirations top secret. I’d argue that every single politician in Washington has a tremendous amount of ambition, which makes you wonder: Who gets to decide how much is too much—and why is the person on the wrong side of that equation almost always female?

So it was somewhat of a relief to read Emma’s story about new research by academics Ana Catalano Weeks and Sparsha Saha. Inspired by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 run, the pair set out to discover how voters react to ambitious female politicians. And despite the researchers’ assumption that they would be cataloging how much the public disliked obviously ambitious women, it turned out that people didn’t much care—they perceived no difference between ambitious female politicians and ambitious male politicians.

But if that’s true, why the digs against Harris? It may be more about the attitudes of the insiders quoted in these stories than the concerns of everyday voters, say the researchers. “To what extent are gatekeepers sexist themselves?” Saha asks. Or, to what extent are those gatekeepers’ ideas about the voting public outmoded? “Are they taking action thinking voters will punish ambitious women? Are they really just thinking about electability?”

Regardless, it’s way past time for everyone—including the men trashing Sen. Harris in the press—to realize how ridiculous it sounds to try to drag women for possessing one of the qualities most aligned with success. As Saha told Emma: “It’s just so absurd. Of course these people are ambitious.”

Kristen Bellstrom
kristen.bellstrom@fortune.com
@kayelbee

Today’s Broadsheet was curated by Emma Hinchliffe.