And what in the story (which my comments were based on) leads you to believe 1) there was actual malice and 2) she's even considered suing the newspaper? She's a public figure, and it's virtually impossible for her to win a lawsuit against a newspaper. I stand by my statement. Put the Law School for Dummies book away.
Well, for starters she evidently suspects it. That's why she's apparently called for an investigation, which is her right to do. If it turns up evidence, great! Then sue the pants off of it and file for criminal charges. If not, then let it drop. Either way, your position is premature.
2) she's even considered suing the newspaper
I suppose that's what she'd do if an investigation turned up evidence of malice. But that requires the investigation itself.
She's a public figure, and it's virtually impossible for her to win a lawsuit against a newspaper.
It may be virtually impossible, but that alone does not _necessarily_ mean she shouldn't try if cause exists. Nor does it mean that it isn't her right to try. All I'm saying is that newspapers can and do commit malicious acts against Republican candidates (witness the case of the KKK ad I just described to you) and if there's enough reason to pursue an investigation of one, that is exactly what they should do.