The Democratic establishment despises the insurgent candidacy of Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii. From her decision to buck party orthodoxy and endorse Sen. Bernie Sanders in 2016 over Democratic National Committee favorite Hillary Clinton, to her constant criticisms of Democratic foreign policy mistakes, Gabbard has made herself no friends with the party elite. She's perfectly fine with that if it's required to put the people first.

Still, this means establishment Democrats and their allies regularly smear and attack the Democratic congresswoman. But, as if we need more proof of how deranged the establishment’s hatred for Gabbard has become, the New York Times style section is now criticizing her… wardrobe?

In a piece titled “Tulsi Gabbard’s white pantsuit isn’t winning,” Times style writer Vanessa Friedman savages the congresswoman for her choice of wardrobe. Friedman correctly notes that Gabbard has made the white pantsuit her defining campaign look, wearing the iconic outfit in most of the debates and much of her prominent campaign promotional material.

Yet where Friedman goes seriously, sinisterly wrong is arguing that the look isn’t working, and sinking into deranged, hypocritical attacks on the congresswoman. Friedman argues that when Hillary Clinton wore white pantsuits, it was feminist and iconic, but when Gabbard does it, she is “using her white suits to tap into another tradition, latent in the public memory: the mythical white knight, riding in to save us all from yet another ‘regime change war.’”

It gets worse. Friedman continues that Gabbard’s white pantsuits are “the white of avenging angels and flaming swords, of somewhat combative righteousness,” and the white of “cult leaders.” Friedman writes that Gabbard’s wardrobe “has connotations of the fringe, rather than the center.”

In an (extremely) thinly-veiled dig at the congresswoman, Friedman writes, “clothes... are only as meaningful as the content that fills them.”

Literally, the @nytimes is now attacking @TulsiGabbard’s white pantsuit. Not only do these people have no shame or journalistic integrity, they don’t even have good fashion sense. That’s unforgivable. — Cullen Tiernan 🦉🌺 (@CullenYossarian) November 21, 2019

With a MSM like this, it’s no wonder we can’t accomplish anything... — Richard Allen (@RParks1785) November 21, 2019

Wow.

If the New York Times is only “as meaningful as the content that fills” it, then based on this article, I'd imagine that the paper’s so-called "style" section is complete trash. First off, anyone with eyes can tell that, in addition to being the only combat veteran running for president, Gabbard is also the most physically beautiful and well-put-together candidate in the race. Her white pantsuits perfectly complement her complexion, and frankly, she looks stunning in them.

Any level-headed observer, whether or not he agrees with Gabbard’s politics, should be able to admit at least that much. But clearly, we are not dealing with level-headed observers at the New York Times.

Friedman seriously expects you to believe that when Clinton wore white pantsuits, it was feminist and wonderful, but now that Gabbard does it, it’s cult-like and awful. This facile argument is so unhinged as to approach self-parody. Yet frankly, it’s emblematic of the establishment’s deeply-held contempt for the congresswoman, who dares view the people’s interests as more important than the party’s.

It's one thing for people to disagree with Gabbard’s political views. But if you can’t admit that she’s rocking it in the white pantsuits, you need to open your eyes.