Caveat: I am by no means a legal expert.
Your comment makes sense, but this interview was on Feb. 16. (before Rush's comments AFAIK). A timeline would help, but then isn't it true that a court would have to decide to what extent this interview made her a "public figure?" I think that judgment would involve a generous degree of opinion. Yes, facts matter too, but I don't think there is an exact mathematical measure of how much of a public figure she was before Rush made the S-word comment.
OK, putting on my political hat now. I will repeat the suggestion that Fluke, acting as the agent of deep-pocketed Leftist entities, could file a lawsuit even if she knew that she would almost certainly lose in court, with the following goals:
1) Try to gain public sympathy, especially if private investigators investigated her private life (needless to say, we know which side the MSM would take). Obama could make public statements, while working behind the scenes to "encourage" feminists, disguised as salt-of-the-earth mothers and daughters, to organize rallies.
2) Go for an out-of-court settlement. Try to make the legal proceedings as expensive as possible for Rush, both to make him settle, and to hurt him financially.
One of the reasons I dug up this February 16 interview and posted it today is because Sm was making that exact same argument to me a few days ago. But at the time I remembered seeing this interview and specifically that it was made before Rush's comments, and even before Pelosi’s make believe hearing,
Her purpose for this interview as a activist was to gain the public's attention and to change the mind's of the viewing public,
This interview kills your case councilor.