From what I saw last night, we got killed in the ground war.  The fabled ACT and the rest of America Votes that was supposed to carry us to electoral victory sputtered and failed in front of the centralized Rovian turnout machine.  No doubt they were hurt by the systemic relative lack preparedness for a large turnout in minority precincts (resulting in very long lines).   However, it appears the fault is mainly our own.  There did not appear to be much of a GOTV effort directed at young people at least when compared to minorities.  Furthermore, we suffered from our decision to "outsource" GOTV to 527s.  It undoubtedly led to redundancy and waste.

2) Ads - "Air War"

    No more commissions for ad buys in any Democratic campaigns.  PERIOD.  It distorts strategy and wastes money.  Money that could be used for GOTV or more ads.  And besides, it doesn't result in good ads.  We should have all ads cut on a flat fee per ad produced with more or less paid based on quality not quantity.  Also, the party needs a serious infusion of creative talent in many areas (such as how it deals with the netroots), but nowhere more so than in the area of our ads.

3) Message and Candidate Personality:

We need to decomplexify.  William Saletan basically hits the nail on its head.  This was our biggest failing was in this area.  He advocates John Edwards as the ideal; however, I'm not sure yet that's the solution yet.  But we do need to find someone who can come across as "simple" and send a "simple message."  A likeable personality is also important.  When we find that person we need to make them the prohibitive favorite for the nomination.  We shouldn't be forcing out the opposition but we should ensure they have the resources to make the primary contested by others but essentially ensure that if our "simple" don't make a major faux pas they will win the nomination, a la GWB  in 2000.  The primary process will still have an important role: it will make sure we didn't make a wrong choice (a test of the candidate's worth).  Anyway, I'm going to reprint Saletan's analysis as I believe it's quite illustrative:

But if you're dissatisfied with Bush--or if, like me, you think he's been the worst president in memory--you have a lot of explaining to do. Why don't a majority of voters agree with us? How has Bush pulled it off?
I think this is the answer: Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity.
Bush is a very simple man. You may think that makes him a bad president, as I do, but lots of people don't--and there are more of them than there are of us. If you don't believe me, take a look at those numbers on your TV screen.
Think about the simplicity of everything Bush says and does. He gives the same speech every time. His sentences are short and clear. "Government must do a few things and do them well," he says. True to his word, he has spent his political capital on a few big ideas: tax cuts, terrorism, Iraq. Even his electoral strategy tonight was powerfully simple: Win Florida, win Ohio, and nothing else matters. All those lesser states--Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Hampshire--don't matter if Bush reels in the big ones.
This is what so many people like about Bush's approach to terrorism. They forgive his marginal and not-so-marginal screw-ups, because they can see that fundamentally, he "gets it." They forgive his mismanagement of Iraq, because they see that his heart and will are in the right place. And while they may be unhappy about their economic circumstances, they don't hold that against him. What you and I see as unreflectiveness, they see as transparency. They trust him.
Now look at your candidate, John Kerry. What quality has he most lacked? Not courage--he proved that in Vietnam. Not will--he proved that in Iowa. Not brains--he proved that in the debates. What Kerry lacked was simplicity. Bush had one message; Kerry had dozens. Bush had one issue; Kerry had scores. Bush ended his sentences when you expected him to say more; Kerry went on and on, adding one prepositional phrase after another, until nobody could remember what he was talking about. Now Bush has two big states that mean everything, and Kerry has a bunch of little ones that add up to nothing.
If you're a Democrat, here's my advice. Do what the Republicans did in 1998. Get simple. Find a compelling salesman and get him ready to run for president in 2008. Put aside your quibbles about preparation, stature, expertise, nuance, and all that other hyper-sophisticated garbage that caused you to nominate Kerry. You already have legions of people with preparation, stature, expertise, and nuance ready to staff the executive branch of the federal government. You don't need one of them to be president. You just need somebody to win the White House and appoint them to his administration. And that will require all the simplicity, salesmanship, and easygoing humanity they don't have.
The good news is, that person is already available. His name is John Edwards. If you have any doubt about his electability, just read the exit polls from the 2004 Democratic primaries. If you don't think he's ready to be president--if you don't think he has the right credentials, the right gravitas, the right subtlety of thought--ask yourself whether these are the same things you find wanting in George W. Bush. Because evidently a majority of the voting population of the United States doesn't share your concern. They seem to be attracted to a candidate with a simple message, a clear focus, and a human touch. You might want to consider their views, since they're the ones who will decide whether you're sitting here again four years from now, wondering what went wrong.
In 1998 and 1999, Republicans cleared the field for George W. Bush. Members of Congress and other major officeholders threw their weight behind him to make sure he got the nomination. They united because their previous presidential nominee, a clumsy veteran senator, had gone down to defeat. They were facing eight years out of power, and they were hungry.
Do what they did. Give Edwards a job that will position him to run for president again in a couple of years. Clear the field of Hillary Clinton and any other well-meaning liberal who can't connect with people outside those islands of blue on your electoral map. Because you're going to get a simple president again next time, whether you like it or not. The only question is whether that president will be from your party or the other one.