What the parties should do now...
Democrats:
Right now it might be tempting for Democrats to think of Obama’s win as a vindication of the party and a public affirmation of where the party has been taking the country for the past two years. But for the Democrats to take such a view would be a grave error. Obama’s victory is every bit as much a critique of the Democratic Party as it is of the Republican Party. It ought to be clear that Obama would never have been given the nomination from the party machine. Instead he had to take the nomination from them, really, with the help of an unprecedented grass-roots movement. Why? Because Democrats of the past few decades have not been particularly Progressive. I don’t even recall them having a Progressive among their potential nominees when Gore was picked in 2000, and in 2004 they all but snubbed their only Progressive, John Edwards, who I still think could have beaten Bush in that election. But with Obama sweeping the Democrats to victory very much in spite of themselves, it’s clear the party needs to rearrange it’s priorities to be more in line with the message (and, perhaps more importantly, the Progressive method) that Obama has brought to the national stage. If the Democrats fail to do this, then they will only end up being an albatross around Obama’s neck. In that case, we may see Obama dedicate much of his presidency to foreign policy issues (as is perfectly constitutionally appropriate, by the way) while the Congressional Democrats bungle things at home (and Obama gets the blame).
Republicans:
As for the Republicans, they need to go back to their roots. I’m certain conservative commentators are saying the same thing right now, but the big problem that Republicans have had for years now is that when they say “roots” they mean Reagan. I mean Lincoln. Because, let’s face it, Progressivism was invented by folks who called themselves Republicans and all of the early Progressives were disciples of Lincoln. Why should this be surprising? Republicanism is about believing that a country can be run best, ultimately, by private citizens who defer to government only those tasks suitable for government. But that means that Republicans ought to oppose the depredations of big business/finance just as much as they’d oppose the depredations of big government. Republicans ought not to oppose regulation out of hand, but ought to only be in favor of regulation that is necessary to prevent private citizens (or corporations or investment banks) from abusing their freedoms by oppressing the rights of others. Principles such as these should be considered timeless Republican articles of faith. What the Republicans need now is a charismatic young candidate who understands this and is able to reset the party agenda. If they accomplish this, then future debates between Democrats and Republicans might evolve into each side trying to “out-Progressive” the other, which would be a refreshing change from the shallow character sniping debates have become today. But if Republicans insist that clinging to Reagan’s corpse is their “comeback” ticket, they will continue to lose relevance with the electorate. And that will be too bad not just because of how it will present its own aggravations to the new president, but because Republican Progressives really could bring some interesting things to the public debate.
Progressive parties:
In the meantime, alternative parties must keep up their good work while resisting the tendency to resent Obama for co-opting the Progressive game. Obama IS Progressive to a significant degree. He IS igniting a Progressive movement, however modest it might be right now. It IS rather sad that most Americans can’t see the inherent value in most Progressive agendas. Heck, it’s sad that it took America this long to elect its first African American president. But the Progressive agenda IS gaining ground. And in lieu of victory, that can give us hope.
Because here's the thing:
The truth is, I'm not the only person who saw Obama speak at the 2004 DNC and knew he'd be president someday. And in 2005 when it was becoming clear that the US wouldn't be able to avoid a global crisis of SOME kind, I'm certain I wasn't the only person who realized that, come what may, it would take the ascendance of a JFK-style leader to pull us out of the dive we were in and Obama was at the top of the list of potentials. But perhaps unlike some of the others, my most optimistic prediction for an Obama presidency had been 2012, and 2016 seemed more likely. When he finally announced he was running in 2008, I tended to think that was a good strategy for giving him a head-start for the future elections. What I hadn't counted on was that a significant number of Americans would be ready for a more Progressive candidate right now. In fact, right up until the day before the election I struggled with believing that "the Progressive moment" that I believed was inevitable in the next decade was happening today. But it is here. Well, it's starting here. We're not really even close to the end and the major parties can still mess it up. But we have a real chance to get the ball rolling. The American people might actually be ready. And in any case, it needs to happen. It's always needed to happen. It must happen, in fact, if humanity is meant to survive much longer. Nothing is certain, that's true. But given the grass-roots manner in which Obama has achieved this historic victory... I think there really is hope.
delicious
diggInteresting...
You know, below I suggested that the only votes McCain could garner were from die-hard Bush supporters and "Obama's a terrorist" wackos... the very two demographics that McCain DIDN'T want to attract. Having the precisely wrong people vote for you is worse than getting no votes at all! And if the Republicans themselves realize this, I don't know how they can fail to see that they have to make radical changes.
(By the way... I do know that some of you folks who voted for McCain didn't fall into either of those two categories... I just happen to think that, among McCain voters, you were vastly outnumbered. 
)
Oh... and...
Yes!
Very well put. I've heard so many analyses both of what Obama's win means for the Democrats and what the Republicans need to do to regroup that has completely missed the main points you make. I especially hear the idea that Obama's win is a win for centrist Democrats (and therefore he shouldn't be tempted to do anything too different/radical/ummm...does the word "change" ring any bells?). Yes he wants to govern all--not just the left, not just Democrats--but centrist? No, that was Bill Clinton (and Gore and Kerry).
Then driving home I hear a group of Republican strategists who are making the claim (based on the Gay Marriage ban in California)--that they need to stress social/cultural conservatism. OR--that Obama won based on the message of "hope"--but that it's "hope" for socialism, and that the Republicans need a new Reagan who can stir up hope for capitalism.
So many things are at a critical point right now--need to throw out this old rhetoric. I don't know that it ever worked, but it sure doesn't help us to think about how to fix what's happening today.
"Socialism"
"Socialism"
I'm sick of how people can call Obama a socialist for wanting to tax rich people, while at the same time supporting (more or less) the buying of banks by the federal government, which actually is socialist. And now GM is looking for a handout. And anyway, how is taxing the rich any more socialist than taxing the middle class?
"Socialism" and other misrepresentations
As far as I know, Obama's tax plan for the rich would essentially return them to where they were before the Bush tax cuts. Were we living in a socialist state before Bush?
Was at a party last night and talked to someone who said that he's trying to convince his sister that Obama is not part of some sleeper-cell conspiracy of Al Qaeda's. I realize this is only one person's view but it reinforces my sense that there are people who get very badly influenced by fear mongering tactics, and that there's something about the way information is communicated in the present day that unfortunately promotes this kind of conspiracy theory. I don't think the left is immune from it either because I was talking to a lot of friends on Tuesday who were completely pessimistic about the election results because they assumed the right wing would find a way to rig the election (the maker of the Dibold voting machines being a friend of Bush was the main connection I heard people making). All symptomatic of people feeling powerless and pushed around--maybe that's the root problem.
"Socialism"
"As far as I know, Obama's tax plan for the rich would essentially return them to where they were before the Bush tax cuts. Were we living in a socialist state before Bush?" - That falls on deaf ears. If you point out anything at all like that, you'll be told that since he's a liberal, he's really going to raise taxes on everyone. Of course, my mom, whose combined income with her husband is around $100,000, considers herself part of the rich upper class that Obama is targeting. There's no telling her any different.
My mom is also part of the "Obama is sekretly Muslim" conspiracy theory. It's extremely ingrained in those people. I doubt it will ever be better. I'd bet good money that McCain's most loyal voters were made up almost entirely of that group and the single-issue voters that think that McCain is actually anti-abortion and that any President will actually be able to do anything about it.
I too was pessimistic about the election for the same reason as your friends. Whoever won, I wanted it to be a total landslide so that there'd be no serious allegations of vote-tampering.
Obama is sekretly Muslim
Well, I know just going on my experience as an office worker, the primary source of information for these people are forwarded emails. They are absolutely bent on believing and defending poorly-made, viral emails with bizarre accusations that Obama is a radical Muslim that was sworn in on the Quran, never recites the Pledge of Allegiance, is not a born-in US citizen, and is the anti-Christ - which I found was being taught at my fellow coworker's church until the very day of the election. I've defended these claims and others from coworkers, friends, and, sadly, most of my family and relatives. There's no telling them any different either... even when they are provided with actual credible information.
I think, as Jaz said, that it is symptomatic of feeling powerless. When people feel powerless, they become susceptible to detecting patterns in situations in an effort to regain some sense of control over their reality. It neatly explains things like beliefs in the supernatural, superstitions, conspiracy theories, etc. With that perspective, you might see how people can be so outlandish with their claims of Obama being secretly connected to terrorist groups, yet still making it to the President's seat, and still seem sane.
Anti-Muslim Sentiment in the 2008 Election
Antichrist
Antichrist is supposed to rise from the ashes of the old Roman Empire. How do they modify Obama's life story to make him fit that? Unless my geography is a lot rustier than I think, Kenya is not in the boundaries of the Roman Empire. Then again, the conspiracy theory that my mom subscribes to claims that Obama is Arab and not black (which is really convincing since, you know, all non-white people look the same), and the HRE did have some control over what are now Arabic lands.
On the other hand...
... couldn't a "total landslide" be seen as evidence of vote-tampering?
Actually, I predicted that if Obama didn't win by a landslide the reason would be racism. Now, in all fairness, I did mean a landslide by Electoral votes AND popular vote, even though I like to remind everyone that the popular vote is and should be constitutionally meaningless. Six percentage points in the popular vote isn't a landslide. But consider this. One source had Bush's approval rating just before the election at 27%. Let's assume all those people voted for McCain. McCain got 46% of the popular vote, so if we take staunch Bush supporters out of that, we're left with 19% of the electorate who were dissatisfied with Bush but still voted for McCain. I can EASILY believe that 19% of the electorate was taken in by this "Obama is a terrorist" nonsense. Thus... racism prevented Obama from taking a landslide in the popular vote.
I could be wrong, of course... but I really don't think so.
In any case... I'm very glad everyone seems to be focusing on the Electoral landslide (including Republicans, it looks like) because as long as everyone thinks the Republicans got crushed they'll likely be interested in following the advice I outline above. (Well, that and the Electoral side of the picture is the only one that ought to matter, of course. )
Aaand I do have to say...
Reshaping the Republican Party
I liked the suggestions that this writer made about reimagining the Republican party in Massachusetts (where we've essentially become a one-part state) which are very much in keeping with what you outlined above. His main point was that Republicans need to not be antigovernment, but for empowering alternatives. He does make the faulty assumption though that what's needed in Massachusetts is a return to a two-party system, rather than a diversity of parties/choices.
Republicans Rebranded