The South isn't an alien planet. It's just got a massive two-century old inferiority complex. Until Democrats understand the psychology and adjust for it, they will continue to lose in the South.

He also believes that Democrats (and liberals in general) need to readjust their approach to getting their message across:

Liberals have, for far too long, tried to persuade people by being moral bullies. They have a tendency to argue negatively rather than positively. In other words, they don't explain why their position is better - they argue that the conservative position is worse, or racist, or anti-enviroment, or whatever. Quite simply, there is far too much 1968 in Democratic rhetoric, and far too little 1960. Red Americans (people in states voting for Bush) have been told for 25 years that they are backwards, racist, sexist, fill-in-the blank and Democrats are now reaping the benefits of that rhetoric. Now, a lot of those arguments are true, but liberals have been characteristically stupid in the rhetoric they have adopted to counter these positions.

These different strands of the 1960s have filtered through into the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. Take Gore. His meta-theme was the "people versus the powerful." The only way the message could have succeeded was if people were angry and without hope. Americans weren't. They never have been, even to the point of absurdity. Gore argued negatively - he provided no reason to vote Democratic, he only offered reasons not to vote Republican. I think Kerry may be falling into this same trap with his screw-the-HMOs message. Democrats need to return to their roots - to 1960. They need to offer positive reasons for voting Democratic. Modern day "liberalism" is, at its essence, a beautiful message. It's not a word to be ashamed of. Liberalism is about helping people. It's about protecting an environment that we do not own, but for which we act as stewards for future generations. Liberalism rejects the pure Darwinian free market, which cares nothing for the struggles of individuals and which is - at its essence - an atheistic philosophy that only values raw power. Liberalism instead mixes free market principles with government programs to help those who need help. It recognizes that government can act as a force for good to help people. That's why I'm not ashamed to call myself a liberal. Properly understood, it is much more consistent with morality and justice than the atheistic free market.

I think Clinton understood this - as does Edwards.