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.

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.

Same author, same newspaper, completely different claim: pic.twitter.com/nXgnjOQUNr — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 22, 2019

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.

Yes, usually it’s misogynistic to attack a female politician for the clothes she wears but an exception will be made (for obvious reasons) in this case.I’m just grateful the NYT didn’t claim white pants suits were Russian. I was waiting for a Kremlin or Putin link. https://t.co/GAO5e2cbvS — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 21, 2019

“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.

All four of these are from @VVFriedman. Imagine choosing something as patently stupid as white pantsuits to expose your rank hypocrisy and blind hatred over. pic.twitter.com/Zj94LQhDIp — ᴾᴿᴬᴳ 🦖 (@pragmatometer) November 22, 2019

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.”

Only neoliberals and war hawks can wear white suites apparently pic.twitter.com/DHvDQaV3fN — K!LLA CAM 🌺 (@killa_cam214) November 21, 2019

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

Didnt it represent the womens suffragette movement when all of the new congresswomen wore them at the State of the Union? Now its a Klan robe? You people are really debasing journalism. — Nick🀄 (@NlCKtheZOMBIE) November 22, 2019

This is what you choose to focus on during the debates? This is what you get paid to write at the New York Times? Is this what you really want to be doing? — Nardio.net (@Nardionet) November 22, 2019

Like this story? Share it with a friend!