At least according to The Howler's interpretation. The key issue, he argues, is that her "no thanks" to Congress is the big lie, which everyone keeps missing:

http://dailyhowler.com/dh090208.shtml

McClatchy gets it dead wrong...

Q. As mayor, did Palin order several books banned from the town library and fire the librarian when she refused?

A. No. No books were ever banned. And the titles that Palin is said to have wanted tossed included several that at the time hadn't even been published yet, according to FactCheck.org.

But she fired the town librarian twice.

uh, not true. ten days after she took office, she requested the resignation of all 5 public officials who served at the pleasure of the mayor. But Emmons, and most of those whose resignations were requested remained on the job....

Three months later, she gave Emmons two weeks notice of an intent to terminate her -- but that was rescinded the next day.

Librarian Mary Ellen Emmons told the Anchorage Daily News that Palin asked her three separate times about the possibility of removing books from the shelves. Each time, Emmons said she wouldn't.

again, false. Emmons has said that the issue was raised twice -- once (privately) before Palin became mayor on Oct 14, 2006, and once at a town council meeting on October 28. It became an issue a third time, after Palin mentioned the library issue as an example in an interview on another topic.

At a local council meeting, Palin explained that her questions on banning had to do with "understanding and following administration agendas," according to the Anchorage paper.

But Palin did end up firing Emmons.

actually, as noted above, while Emmons was given a notice of termination on Jan 30, 2007, it was rescinded the next day after Emmons agreed that the library and town museum be administered jointly. This was well after any question of 'censorship' was being asked. Emmons resigned in 1999, two months before Palin's re-election.

The media, including McClatchy, is trying to equate Palin's legitimate personnel decisions with the 'censorship' question, but an examination of contemporaneous local reporting makes it clear that there was little or no relationship there.

from cnn;
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/22/alaska....

ABC;
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/...

USA Today;
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/...

ADN;
http://dwb.adn.com/news/alaska/story/932...

And the Alaska Democratic Party;
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:szp...

She may have been for it while running for governor, but, after all the details began to be filled in on this project, she canceled it. Congress rearranged the wording to allow Alaska to keep the advance monies sent...some $238 mil?

From Mudflats comes a post with a different video of a meeting of the Alaska Independence Party with the following:

“Our current governor, we mentioned at the last conference, the one we were hoping would get elected, Sarah Palin, did get elected. There’s a joke, she’s a pretty good looking gal, there’s a joke goes around we’re the coldest state with the hottest governor. (laughter) And there was a lot of talk about her moving up. She was an AIP member before she got the job as a mayor of a small town — that was a non-partisan job. But to get along and go along — she eventually joined the Republican Party, where she had all kinds of problems with their ethics, and well, I won’t go into that. She also had about an 80% approval rating, and is pretty well sympathetic to her former membership.“

he's been off base on this one.

It’s true that Governor Palin was in favor of the bridge earmark initially. But after it became a national outrage she decided otherwise. That might not seem like much, but remember that the Senate actually approved it not once, but twice. The second time was when Sen. Coburn put forth an amendment which would have used the money instead to repair a bridge that had been severely damaged by Hurricane Katrina. It would have seemed like a no-brainer at the time, a total PR win to vote in favor of the new amendment, especially since by then the Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere earmark had become a cause celebre. But wow, I remember at the time being utterly amazed when it went down in defeat. It was only then, when what seems like the only politician who had a sack of brains, stepped forward and said “nah, this ain’t cool.” IIRC, every single Democrat voted against the amendment, (except for Feingold, of course).

So all this crowing about how she voted for it before she voted against it is a lot of BS. The Dems SUCKED on this. Palin stood up and did the right thing after they did not. So they should STFU.