Tulsi Gabbard is a progressive, Samoan American woman, and Democratic candidate for president. But apparently we’re supposed to believe she’s also a Russian stooge and alt-right figurehead.

On Oct. 12, the New York Times published an absurd hit piece — as a “news” article, not opinion — lambasting Gabbard and grossly distorting her candidacy. It’s apparent from the incredulous, not objective headline: “What, Exactly, Is Tulsi Gabbard Up To?” and the subhead of the article, which reads: “As she injects chaos into the 2020 Democratic primary by accusing her own party of ‘rigging’ the election, an array of alt-right internet stars, white nationalists and Russians have praised her.”

Woah. We’re not even 100 words in, and the Times is already linking Gabbard, a woman of color, to Nazis and Russia?!?

It gets worse. What’s their evidence of the Hawaii congresswoman’s supposed far-right ties? Apart from cherry-picking a few fringe figures who support her, the Times cites the following :

On podcasts and online videos, in interviews and Twitter feeds, alt-right internet stars, white nationalists, libertarian activists and some of the biggest boosters of Mr. Trump heap praise on Ms. Gabbard. They like the Hawaiian congresswoman’s isolationist foreign policy views. They like her support for drug decriminalization. They like what she sees as censorship by big technology platforms.

Huh? It’s frankly astounding that a journalist, Lisa Lerer, at a newspaper like the Times would cite supporting drug decriminalization as evidence that someone panders to the alt-right. If anything, opposing the failed war on drugs is a position true liberals often hold, and even if you disagree with Gabbard’s call to decriminalize marijuana under federal law, it’s certainly not evidence of ties to or sympathy for the alt-right.

As far as her “isolationist” foreign policy is concerned, it’s a stretch to draw a straight line from non-interventionism to racism. For one, that would mean half the country is secretly racists. Polls show that half of Americans think the president should use military force less often, and only 20% support more attempts at regime-change wars, the foreign policy Gabbard most frequently rails against.

Is everyone who disagrees with liberal hawks and neoconservatives on foreign policy a white nationalist in the estimation of the New York Times? That’s what the article implies, even though it makes little sense — I'd personally tend to think the foreign policy worldview that involves killing fewer brown people in the Middle East isn't racist, but that's just me.

Additionally, the Times quotes one “expert” who says Gabbard has “the seal of approval” from white nationalists. Even if this is true, so what? The anti-Semitic alt-right loves Rep. Ilhan Omar for her criticisms of Israel. But something tells me the Times (rightly) won’t use that as evidence that the left-wing Muslim woman of color is secretly alt-right.

Fringe figures are going to support somebody, and Gabbard has denounced their support in no uncertain terms. No one can point to any actual racism in Gabbard’s record, so this amounts to little more than a vicious smear of a candidate who dares stray from mainline Democrat orthodoxy.

And ultimately, critics aren’t shy that this is what has earned Gabbard their ire. The Times quotes Democratic Party flak and ex-Hillary Clinton shill Neera Tanden, who blasts Gabbard, saying, “She’s taken a series of policy steps which signal to the right that she has deep areas of alignment.”

Tanden provides no examples. Yes, it’s true that Gabbard opposes radical policies such as third-term abortion and open borders (she also supports liberal policies like "Medicare for all" and gun control). Is the Democratic media and establishment admitting that holding such commonsense, mainstream positions now makes you a right-winger?

Of course, what would a good liberal media smear be without an invocation of something something Russia.

The Times article suggests that Gabbard’s campaign is backed by Russia, and hints that something about her must be appealing to Putin, or something. This suggestion, as journalists like to say these days, is without evidence.