While it seems that we are working better at defining the debate more to our advantage, we are still using terminology that can be seen as advantageous to McCain. McCain is seen as a strong military-style leader (I know this shouldn't be the case, but it is), and as long as we use the Republican framing, this race is far too close for comfort.
If the Democrats have any hope at winning, they have to change the narrative. The job description in Article II of the Consitution lays out the duties of the President of the United States.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Notice that only one sentence (well it would be a sentence in modern english writing), mentions "Commander-in-chief." The media have, when talking about this election, referred to the job as commander-in-chief too much for my personal comfort. I find it a bit unnerving that we have not challenged this framing. While it isn't true, the Republicans have their only advantages in war and "terrorism." There is this entrenched perception that Republicans are better for national security issues. I think we should challenge this idea, but in the end, we have to move the debate to the understanding that being President is more than being a war leader.
I think the Democrats are starting to do a decent job at talking about the economy, but "Commander-in-Chief" is a code word for keeping the issue on foreign policy at the front and pushing the more damaging issue of the economy onto the backburner.