© REUTERS/Brendan McDermid
Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard speaks during the U.S. Democratic presidential candidates debate at the Tyler Perry Studios in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S. November 20, 2019.
The New York Times has been accused of peddling ridiculous and shamelessly biased punditry, after the Gray Lady took aim at presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard's white pantsuit but ended up red-faced.

Style writer Vanessa Friedman argued that the Hawaii congresswoman's wardrobe made her look like a "cult leader" full of "combative righteousness." The terrifying white fabric has "connotations of the fringe, rather than the center" and even undermines "community building," the Times' writer expertly deduced.

Comment: "Style writer" Vanessa Friedman reveals herself to be a total non-entity - but what more can you expect from a "style writer"? The mindless rot emanating from the place where her brain should be is representative of the typical tripe spewed out by the New York Times for years. Reality is what they say it is, apparently. It would be funny if it weren't so Orwellian.

Unfortunately, her completely reasonable fashion analysis came under fire from fringe-loving social media users, who rudely pointed out that Friedman had drooled over Hillary Clinton's white pantsuit back in 2016.

Journalist Glenn Greenwald pointed out that usually it's considered "misogynistic" to attack female politicians about their clothing choices - but apparently an exception can be made for Gabbard, who has been lambasted in the media for challenging the Democratic establishment.

"Imagine choosing something as patently stupid as white pantsuits to expose your rank hypocrisy and blind hatred over," one Twitter user commented, including screengrabs illustrating Friedman's clearly contradictory takes on white clothing.

Sharing photos of a white-clad Clinton and presidential hopeful Kamala Harris, one netizen theorized that such clothing was reserved solely for "neoliberals and warhawks."

Dozens of other Twitter replies attacked Friedman for her contrived commentary.