Believe it or not the National Enquirer unlike the other rags of its ilk, is highly reliable and accurate, and has a team of lawyers that everything has to be vetted through, because without the goods, the risk of a libel action is just too great.
Isn't a successful libel suit concerning a public figure virtually impossible to win? You have to show actual malice. "Yeah, maybe there's no proof, but we believed it was true and didn't mean anything bad."
If you just make something up with no backup, and it turns out to be false, that's malice. And while Hillary is clearly a public figure, sometimes it is less clear. Anyway, the rag has a team of lawyers, which it uses, and it's highly credible. They bagged John Edwards, and I can't ever recall an instance where they had to retract.
I don't think the lesbian thing will hurt Hillary much (folks are more tolerant of lesbians than gays for reasons I understand but find personally bizarre). The Libyan thing however might (at least it has more potential to do so). We shall see.
