With Breitbart claiming that Sherrod’s suit is part of a “last-ditch attempt to shock me into silence,” does Sherrod actually have a case? To find out, we spoke with  Floyd Abrams, the renowned constitutional lawyer, who gave us a crash course in what Sherrod has to prove in court in the months ahead.

What is the definition of defamation?

Defamation is seriously defined as a statement that holds someone up to ridicule or the like. It is a statement which is likely to hurt the person — in her [Sherrod's] case in her personal or professional life — in a self-evidently negative manner.

Do Breitbart’s actions meet that criteria?

If it is true that he edited her speech in a way to change the meaning of it, that can pass the test for defamation. I mean, if [Breitbart] made her look as if she was denouncing all white people, when in fact she was explaining how her views changed through the years, that can be defamatory. I have no view on what it is he did or not, I’m just saying [that] if that’s what he did, it can be defamatory.

I should add that she [Sherrod] was at the time he did it a public official, and so her burden is a heavy one. She has to demonstrate not just that he did it, but that he knew what he was doing was false [or] would leave a false impression about what she had said, or [that he] had some serious doubts about what he was doing.

To put it more affirmatively, if he was acting in a good faith manner, but the editing that he engaged in turned out to get her into trouble, then that would not be enough to demonstrate actual malice — which is what you have to demonstrate when you are a public official and you bring a libel suit. If, on the other hand, she can show that for his political reasons, his ideological reasons, his desire to make a name for himself, or whatever, that he purposely distorted what she said in a way that damaged her, then she might have a serious claim.

Breitbart is known for his hyperbolic allegations against the left. A few days ago at CPAC, for example, he referred to liberal groups such as ACORN, Code Pink, and labor unions as “hate-filled, racist sheep” and “monsters.” If Sherrod wins her defamation case against him, what impact will that have on both Breitbart’s statements and what other bombastic pundits are permitted to say?

In a sense, the law is more protective of what we call rhetorical hyperbole than it is of false statements of fact. Calling someone in a political sense “a monster” would not be actionable. And a number of the extreme statements that one routinely hears on right wing radio would be viewed as either simply opinions, and thus not actionable, or simply a rhetorical hyperbole or name calling, which is protected. What’s not protected is knowingly making a false statement of fact which defames the person who sues, and that’s what she must be saying in her lawsuit.

Bottom line, it’s pretty rare to have a situation in which [someone] is literally cutting tape in a way to totally distort what the offended person has said. It happens sometimes, but we don’t live in a world with a lot of libel suits about politics. I mean, the President wouldn’t sue Rush Limbaugh because Limbaugh says he purposely is weakening America. So I don’t think that a victory for her would have any real impact on the ability of right wing media to keep on doing what they’re doing.

But Romney’s problems are bigger that CPAC. He’s been running — hard — for president since at least 2005, laboring to align himself with every right-wing position and pet cause and straining to make conservatives forget about his years as a Massachusetts moderate. He’s been somewhat successful in this, but his Massachusetts healthcare program — originally conceived as a brilliant way of using conservative principles to solve a big problem — haunts him in the “ObamaCare” era. He says all the things conservatives want to hear, but many of them wonder whether he really means it. Romney may yet win the GOP nomination in ’12, but his low (for a supposed front-runner) poll numbers and weak finishes in straw polls like CPAC’s speak to the opening that exists for someone — anyone — to come along and grab the nomination from him.

But who?

Paul, who has now won the CPAC straw poll for two years, is a nonstarter. The angry reaction of just about everyone who didn’t vote for him when the results were announced Saturday is a good indication of the ceiling he faces.

Tim Pawlenty is trying furiously to be a contender, and has been since the 2008 race. But his speech fell flat and he ended up tied for sixth place in the straw poll with 4 percent. Again, the straw poll itself isn’t, in the grand scheme of things, a huge deal. But for all of his effort these past few years, and despite the wide opening for a fresh face, he just doesn’t seem to be fueling any interest among the Republicans who matter most at this stage of the process.

Haley Barbour is pretty clearly running. He’s scheduled a major fundraiser for his PAC in the coming weeks, and now comes word that he’ll head to Iowa next month. He nabbed only 1 percent at CPAC, although maybe that can be discounted: He hasn’t been working it with anything approaching the intensity of Pawlenty these past few years. But Barbour has some serious baggage. Like today’s news that he’s lobbied on behalf of the Mexican government for amnesty. There’s also the issue of his freighted racial history, and whatever pragmatic concerns it raises for November-minded Republicans.

John Thune is often touted as a dark horse, mainly because of his physical appearance. He also voted for TARP and is one of the worst GOP earmark offenders in the Senate. Some wonkish think-tank types like Mitch Daniels … whose CPAC speech was apparently savaged by Rush Limbaugh on Monday afternoon. Rick Santorum’s speech was notable mostly for the large number of empty seats in the room. Sarah Palin didn’t take part in CPAC, but in the wake of Tucson, there’s more reason than ever to doubt that Republicans will actually anoint her if she runs. And if you think Newt Gingrich is the one to watch, well …

All of this is good news for Romney. If this is his competition, then maybe he actually can emerge from next year’s primaries. But it’s also good news for two other Republicans: Mike Huckabee and Chris Christie.

Huckabee skipped CPAC – he says its gotten too libertarian. But polls have found him to be the most popular Republican in the ’12 mix. He’s a rock star to cultural conservatives but is also immensely likable. He passes the sincerity test that Romney flunks. After watching CPAC, it’s easier than ever to imagine the GOP nominating him next year. The question is whether he’ll actually run. He’s living a comfortable life now as a political entertainer. It’s conceivable that he’ll opt out of a ’12 race, especially if Obama’s prospects continue to improve.

And then there’s Christie. He has insisted that he won’t run in ’12, and there’s good reason to believe him. He spent nearly a decade of his life pursuing the job he has now, and it’s a job he truly enjoys. If he were to leave New Jersey to wage a presidential campaign, he would almost certainly kiss away his chances of winning a second gubernatorial term in 2013. Even flirting too much with a ’12 run is risky for him, given how slim his margin for error is in New Jersey. There’s little doubt Christie likes the idea of running for president; but to run now,  he needs a clear shot at the nomination. But maybe Saturday got him thinking: Despite not setting foot at CPAC, Christie ended up with 6 percent of the vote in the straw poll. It’s  not a huge number, but it’s also better than the 4 percent that Pawlenty, who has been working day and night for two years to position himself for events like CPAC, did.

3,742 people participated in the poll, a minority of the 10,000+ attendees.  (See what the straw poll ballot looks like here.)

Paul’s support can at least partly be ascribed to friendly groups buying CPAC tickets en masse for Paul fans, who also made their presence known this year by heckling Dick Cheney.

Here’s my interview with a young Ron Paul supporter on Thursday:

After Bolton’s speech, he came to the press room to take questions and talk about 2012. He said he’s actively considering a presidential candidacy, but he has to worry about earning a daily income and he’s never run for public office before. He thinks he can enter the field as late as the end of this year.

I asked Bolton what he thought of Glenn Beck’s theory that the Egyptian protests mark the beginning of a worldwide Islamic caliphate. “I haven’t seen the programs that Glenn has broadcast on this, so I don’t want to comment on something that I haven’t seen in its fullest extent,” he said. “But there are leaders in that part of the world — like Osama bin Laden — who talk about the restoration of the caliphate. I am very disturbed by that.”

Watch the video:

This one was handed out by Ron Paul fans protesting the presentation of the Defender of the Constitution Award to Donald Rumsfeld: 

A representative of The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property gave this flyer to me with the exhortation to “protect our military.” It is headlined “To KEEP OUR HONOR CLEAN!” and includes a section refuting “the myth that homosexuality is genetic.”

Finally, here is a flyer from the “American Tradition Partnership” attacking Newt Gingrich for his “left-wing environmental record.”