Palin has no recourse other than refuting this jackass or ignoring him. Unfortunately, there are a few morons who, instead of ripping into him for the jackass he is, will instead use his lies to further their own PDS agenda on FR.
And they deserve as much scorn as the author of this tripe.
You imply that because she is a public figure, she has no legal recourse. That is untrue. Public figures may sue in defamation, and may expect to win if certain conditions are true:
“The First Amendment requires that a defamation plaintiff prove actual malice or reckless disregard of the truth when the plaintiff is a public official or public figure. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). This is a much higher burden of proof for a public figure plaintiff. Instead of showing objectively that a “reasonable person” knew or should have known the defamatory statement was false, a public figure plaintiff must prove the intent of the defendant was malicious, or that they acted with reckless disregard for the truth. This allows the defendant to prove its good faith intent and efforts as a defense.”
Available at http://www.abbottlaw.com/defamation.html
So Palin’s problem is not lack of recourse, but proof of key elements in a public figure case. She would need to show at least two things:
First, she would need to show the claims were indeed false, as truth is an absolute defense to a claim of defamation.
Second, she would need to present affirmative evidence the defamation was conducted with malicious intent or at least reckless disregard of the truth (aka NYT Malice). Without some admissible smoking gun, such as hard evidence of intent to run the story despite knowledge of facts to the contrary, the defense could respond with a claim that defendant had made a good faith effort to speak the truth, had sincerely tried but failed to discover that the allegations in the story were false, etc.
The net effect is that most defamation suits against public figures either do not go forward or are unsuccessful, because the proof issue is difficult, and everyone knows it. However, it remains true that legal recourse is available even to public figures, and that suit in defamation may succeed if the above criteria are in fact met. Therefore your reliance on the belief that she as a public figure has no legal recourse to defend the honor of her name is misguided. Sorry.