Has the DNC been sufficiently re-engineered?

DNC has failed to win in 2000 on the tails of the longest economic boom of the century and in 2004 against the worst President in American history. Why? Because of
1) Lack of marketing skill, i.e. dearth of assertiveness, inability (partly from the fatal decision to "go dark" in August when GOP mounted their attacks) to counter flip flop, Swift boat liars, and nail Bush on his lies, i.e. when Kerry failed to override Shaffer in debate#3 and nail Bush immediately on his lie that the tax cut went to the middle class (demonstrated to be an unequival lie by Paul Krugman).
2) Selecting candidates from proven unpopular backgrounds, i.e. New England, east and west coast that are unacceptable to the swing states, and inadequate experiences, i.e. senators who are not executives.

Solution:
1) New DMC staffed with top-notch marketers.
2) New Presidential candidate criteria, i.e. a governor from the Midwest or southern state with executive experience.
3) Per Kissweb at this blog, implement a 50 state strategy to capture swing states.

How convincing is the evidence that the DNC has made significant progress in finding a solution?