[Defiant]

The National Enquirer feels relatively safe, because a public person has to prove actual malice, and because they don't get sued by politicians since either the stories are true (Clinton and women, Kerry and the Swiftboaters) or the politician is dirty enough that even if the specific charge is false, the politician cannot prove harm to character and opens up his or her entire life to scrutiny.

However, in the case of McCain and Palin, there just may be good reason to sue the news organizations that are promoting these lies. They are clean, and the lies are pretty bad, and the organizations know they are lies or are reckless about the truth.

[JennysCool]

Notice how the Enquirer phrases its response:

"The National Enquirer's coverage of a vicious war within Sarah Palin's extended family includes several newsworthy revelations, including the resulting incredible charge of an affair ..."

"Incredible," as in "not credible." It's parsed that way in the original article, too.