You're splitting the thinnest of hairs here, which, perhaps not coincidentally, is the same way the Franken types come up with the vast majority of their so-called "lies". Coulter's article made it clear she was talking about the immediate reporting of the contract:
Rush Limbaugh's misfortune is apparently a bigger story than his nearly $300 million radio contract signed two years ago. That was the biggest radio contract in broadcasting history. Yet there are only 12 documents on LexisNexis that reported it. The New York Times didn't take notice of Rush's $300 million radio contract, but a few weeks later, put Bill Clinton's comparatively measly $10 million book contract on its front page.The news of Rush's new contract broke on July 15, 2001. Your article is from a full month later, and mentions his contract only in passing as part of a different story. I just searched, and the Times did NOT report Rush's contract as hard news in any form whatsoever when it actually WAS news. Just as Coulter said, they "didn't take notice." And they did report Bill Clinton's contract as hard news the day it was announced.
If you remain desperate to "nail" Ann Coulter on something, you'll be happy to know I was unable to find any Bill Clinton book deal stories on the FRONT front page; the article in question appears to have run on the front page of the business section instead. I'll be sure to alert the Crucifixion Hut that you'll be sending Ann over for that error.