An email:

Regarding Timothy Noah’s characterization of Sarah Palin’s views – I have a couple of questions. You indicated that she is opposed to “explicit” sex education. What does this mean? What exactly does she want prohibited? Personally, I don’t have strong feelings about sex education one way or the other, but Noah’s characterization seems perfectly adequate given Palin’s lack of specifics on what she opposes. (“Explicit means explicit” doesn’t really get you anywhere.)
Regarding “favored teaching teenagers about creationism” – its clear from the debate that she does favor just that. The follow up makes it clear that she doesn’t want it in law, won’t use it as a litmus-test for the school board, etc. – but she does favor it. (I would prefer a candidate who did use creationism as a litmus test for the school board – anyone who wants in the curriculum is excluded.) As an example from the other side, Obama has been clear that he is not going to try to legislate regarding gun ownership (this is clearly for political reasons). This hasn’t kept NR from attacking his position on guns, has it?
In the end, it seems like Noah’s characterization of Palin’s views on this are more than fair.

Sorry, but that’s absurd. Noah’s characterization of Palin’s position on creationism is at best misleading. His characterization of her position on sex ed is incorrect. “Explicit means explicit” may not get you very far, but Palin has specifically said that instruction about contraception does not fall within the definition according to her. Her views are not what Noah claims they are. As for the gun post to which you link, I provide evidence on both sides of Obama’s muddle; if you want to say I’ve mischaracterized something, give me specifics.