The more I think about, the more I think the ad the RNC is running against Harold Ford in the Tennessee Senate race is potentially libelous. The "blonde" in the ad makes an affirmative statement of fact: "I met Harold Ford at the Playboy party." Now, the woman who said that, in fact, did not meet Harold Ford at a Playboy party (take a look at hre, she couldn't dance at my local strip club, let alone gain entrance to the Playboy mansion), and she (and the RNC)know it.
Further, at the end of the ad the "blonde" makes another statement: "Harold, call me," waving an "air phone" by her ear, implying that she gave Ford her number at the Playboy party she claims to have met him at. Again, another intentional misstatement of fact. She knows, and the RNC knows, she did not give Ford her telephone number at a party, or anywhere else.
Yes, I know (or suspect) the "blonde" is a paid actess. But, the ad doesn't say she is. Indeed, the entire ad is shot as "man on the street" interviews with the common voter. Nor is their a disclaimer that the "blonde's" interview, or any of the other interviews, are "dramatization." The viewer is purposefully left with the impression that this woman in fact met Ford at a Playboy party, and gave him her phone number. None of which is true.
So, apart from the ad's racist overtones, I think it is also a potentially actionable tort.