I don't think so. If the attitudes expressed here are even slightly reflective of wider attitudes in the real world, then, yes, they are "potentially dangerous". And in exactly the same way that all that "real America" nonsense was.
Speaking as a lifelong resident of the north, in my experience, most of the North doesn't care about the South. That's how it's been for over a century. The regional divide is much more keenly felt and resented in the South than it is anywhere else in the country.
Hard core Democrats and political junkies are an exception to the rule, and there is some superficial prejudice (as there is with all sides), but you almost never achieve the same level of resentment and anger that some southerners have held toward the north across the whole period of American history. (I'm giving up worrying about my capitalization here.)
One simple reason is that most northerners aren't descended from Civil War soldiers and don't identify with that history at all; similarly, the Civil War left few scars in this part of the country. The other part is, given the imbalance of wealth between the two regions, we know historically how those imbalances are perceived differently and lead to a gap in resentment.
Anyway, as you well know, the South as it exists in reality is different from "the South" as commonly stereotyped, lionized, or attacked, because the "real" South includes huge pockets of loyal Democratic voters, including African-Americans. James Clyburn is from the South. I'm not really worried that the Democratic Party is going to forget this or shut out its power brokers from Atlanta, Raleigh-Durham, or Houston because some young political junkies or college students vent some steam on the Internet about the dominating political class in most of the South which voted uniformly for Bush in 2000 and 2004.
