Unconventional Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard, who singlehandedly drove a stake through the heart of Kamala Harris's campaign, and who called Hillary Clinton "the embodiment of corruption" is not popular with the Democratic establishment.

But they can't seem to do anything to get rid of her.  Gabbard was unfairly excluded from the September Democratic debate, despite meeting all its requirements, and from there, her support only grew bigger, making it impossible to deny her a podium at the November Democratic debate.

She was there, and they can't get rid of her, but oh, do they want to.  So now the public relations arm of the Democratic Party, the New York Times, has taken to attacking her for her white pantsuit.

This, in a way, makes sense because all the rest of us see in that pantsuit is that it makes her look like a million bucks.  Unlike Hillary Clinton, she looks awesome in her pantsuit.  Why she shouldn't wear it again and again to put on her best face is a question with no credible answer.  I'd be mad if Gabbard didn't wear her beautiful pantsuit.  When you have to listen to that much leftism, looking at someone who's easy on the eyes and dressed nice always helps.

So now we have the New York Times attacking Gabbard for her pantsuit, coming up with the bizarrest claims this side of Russian propaganda.

Here's the Times' first complaint, that she wore white more than once:

That kind of repetition, especially during events geared toward the public eye, does not happen by accident. There's a reason she is opting for the imagery; a calculation behind the choice.

She should, by all counts, be seen as the standard-bearer of the tradition, so recently embraced by so many women. Yet reaction has been muted at best; more along the lines of "Hey, she looks really good in white," than "our champion!"

Do we so quickly forget? Or is something else going on?

Memo to the Times: Trust us: she looks good in white.

The Times says that far from her pantsuit being a feminist symbol, as many leftists have made it in the past, hers, somehow, is a "white knight" symbol as someone coming to rescue her from endless wars.

Bee ess.  She looks good in white, why is this so hard to understand?

Here's where the garbage gets even weirder:

Her white suits are not the white suits of Ms. Clinton, nor even the white of Ms. Williamson, whose early appearances in the shade often seemed tied to her wellness gospel and ideas of renewal and rebirth. Rather, they are the white of avenging angels and flaming swords, of somewhat combative righteousness (also cult leaders). And that kind of association, though it can be weirdly compelling, is also not really community building. It sets someone apart, rather than joining others together. It has connotations of the fringe, rather than the center.

One more time for the slow learners: She wears white because she looks good in white.  Hillary Clinton wore aqua during her 2016 presidential campaign and yes, that was because she looks good in aqua.  President Reagan wore brown because he looks good in brown.

The Washington Examiner has more here.

This isn't hard to understand.

Nor is the Times' real agenda, which is to paint Tulsi in the weirdest, most bizarre colors possible.  They're trying to pin her with the label "cultie" which is dirty-pool targeting Gabbard's family background.  All I smell is a Democratic establishment machine that's growing desperate.  Watch Tulsi's numbers get just a bit higher after this one.

Image credit: Tulsi Gabbard/MSNBC via shareable YouTube screen shot.