Those who argue that it will be difficult to attack Palin because she is a woman, and that attacking her inexperience could be construed as offensive to women in general have a point, but the problem can be handled. The general line should be not attacking her directly but rather criticizing Mccain for choosing her. Something like this: "she is a decent person with a compelling personal story, but she was put into a humiliating position by McCain by submitting her to such challenges that she could not possibly face." This could be repeated each time she says something stupid or uninformed. Each gaffe she makes, attack McCain for humiliating her and offer some measure of sympathy to her. After all, the main task is to undermine him, not her. Describe it as a reckless choice, not because she is a bad or stupid person but because she is so completely untested.
This can be done withount inconsistency while at the same time praising her as a person. Done well, this can neutralize the potential risks of attacking her directly. Each mistake she makes should be made to reflect badly on him, not her, pointing out that she was put in a situation that she could not possibly handle.
To be sure, there is a fine line to walk here and sure as hell every single criticism of her will be construed as sexist, bringing up each time the alleged mistreatment of Hillary by the Obama campaign during the primaries. (Just to make it clear: I don't think the Obama camp was guilty of any sexism, but the media was. And the Obama camp may be faulted for not condemning these instances forcefully). That's why it is essential to tread very carefully, because attacks that could be construed as sexist are exactly what the McCain camp is gambling on and which are about the only things that can make this really RECKLESS gamble pay off for them. Remember, it occasionally worked for Hillary.