It isn't just the Republicans who have had a "southern strategy" of late. Nixon may have started it for the Republicans 35 years ago when he tried to appeal to white bigots, but starting with the DLC and Clinton, the Democrats have been trying their own version of the southern strategy for over 10 years. And it's time we stopped.
The Democratic version has at its heart the idea that we need a "centrist" who comes from the south to win. That's because the hapless North will supposedly vote for whoever the Democrat is, even if the candidate is more conservative than many Democrats in the north would like. However, Southerners will not vote for a Northerner who is more liberal than they would like.
I actually think that from about 1968 to 1992 it made sense for the Democratic party to retrench a little on social issues. In particular, I believe that some version of welfare reform (including some version of a workfare component) was necessary not just to make the Democrats seem more responsible and tough-minded, but actually for the sake of the chronically poor. But I don't want to get into the details of this and other moves away from Great Society liberalism.
Instead, my point is pretty simple and based on electoral votes: the Democrats aren't going to win by taking the south. If they take it, or part of it, they will have enough votes elsewhere to win without it. If they don't take it and lose, it's because they lost some crucial swing states like Ohio or Missouri.
It doesn't make sense to say that a Democratic candidate lost because they couldn't hold Georgia, or Tennessee (except when the candidate comes from there). We will always be able to point to a number of other, more realistic states to put the blame. We need to forget about the southern strategy and pursue a candidate who is appealing to the midwest and west.
Of the current crop, that seems to make Dean and Clark the leading contenders.