IANAL . I suspect she will lose on "actual malice." They'll argue their intention was to condemn her campaign rhetoric and the like of it, in general and using her as an example. The editorial wasn't meant as a smear piece against her at all but as a warning. "Reckless disregard" is entirely subjective. Unless you're writing an order to hurt someone (hiring a hitman for instance), writing about them doesn't itself expose them to harm. Unless people that write things are responsible for people that do them, ironically the point the Times was trying to make in the first place. In reality, they aren't. If I say someone is a tyrant, and you shoot them because you dislike tyrants, I'm not responsible for your actions. It seems possible to describe someone as acting with "reckless regard," but I can't imagine an empirical standard for what that is. Hence why public figures rarely win defamation lawsuits in the United States and why the Times has such a long record of winning them. You can pretty much say what you want with impunity. Which is fine with me.