"It was only a mere presidential election cycle ago, after all, that the white suit was thrust into the limelight as a symbol of so much: women’s advancement and opportunity..."

"... and the possibility of change. That it became not an item of clothing but a placeholder in a continuum that began with the suffragists, continued through Geraldine Ferraro, and resonated today. That it sparked mountains of text and tweets and entire Facebook groups dedicated to celebrating its meaning and urging adoption — and then designating it the outfit of the opposition. That Hillary Clinton made it a cause célèbre, #WearWhiteToVote made it a hashtag, Melania Trump made it a pointed subject of speculation, and the women of the 116th Congress made it a gauntlet."

But then along came Tulsi, and "Tulsi Gabbard’s White Pantsuit Isn’t Winning" — according to Vanessa Friedman in the NYT. Elizabeth Warren isn't doing the white pantsuit. Amy Klobuchar isn't doing the white pantsuit. Kamala Harris isn't doing the white pantsuit. Only Tulsi. And she's not doing it right. She's worn a white pantsuit in 3 debates. Oh! She persisted!

What is Friedman's problem with Tulsi in white? Well, Friedman doesn't admit that she has a problem with Tulsi in white. She's gesturing at the existence of opinion out there: "reaction has been muted at best." Is that even anything? The absence of getting as excited about Tulsi in white as people got about Hillary Clinton in white... but was that even ever real excitement? Wasn't that fake? And no one's criticizing Tulsi, are they?

Assuming there's some kind of problem here, Friedman speculates that it might be abou Gabbard's squabbling with Hillary Clinton (Clinton called her a Russian asset and Gabbard called Clinton "queen of the warmongers") or the fact that there are other women on the stage, but it's most likely because Gabbard's white is not the white of the suffragists but "the white of avenging angels and flaming swords, of somewhat combative righteousness (also cult leaders)." That is, per Friedman, she's not about "community building" she's about setting herself apart and appealing to "the fringe, rather than the center."

To me, the white suit — on any candidate — is a problem. It's too bright, drawing attention away from the face. It makes you look as though you're not ready for hard work, only for show. And I suspect that most women feel that they couldn't wear an all white suit because it's unflattering. It's just not realistic. Maybe that's the point, trying to look like the embodiment of ideals. But that's not what we need in a President.

But what about the white suit on Tulsi in particular? Is it a problem because the white suit has important, recent, special meaning and she's not doing that meaning? Can't she just pick whatever color she wants? Sometimes white is just a color?