Actually, I think it shows character that she stands up for what may not be popular.
It also will give her more moral authority when she is called on to condemn Muslim acts which she considers inciteful (like the GZ Mosque, for example). She can say that she condemns such acts across the board as she has now proven and, because, there are far more of these acts on the Muslim side the world will see more clearly that moral equivalency is NOT a reality despite what the MSM continually says. In other words, Palin and other leaders in the US condemn such acts when performed by Americans whereas Muslim leaders do not when they are performed by their people.
Standing up for what you believe in is not the same as taking a stance on a topic to achieve “moral authority”, although both goals are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and aggressive attempts to display “moral authority” only serve to expose an entities ultimate agenda and typically leads to exposure as a hypocrite or an outright charlatan. There are plenty of demagogues that come to mind when I think of that line of reasoning.