First of all, Hillary Clinton has never diaried on Dailykos, to my knowledge. Democratic Senators Kennedy, Boxer, Kerry, Edwards, Webb, Durbin, Schumer, Feingold, and others, plus a quite a number of Democrats in the House, have dialogued with this community. But Clinton, no. A slam-dunk, you may say. Why indeed would this candidate choose to appear in a venue where there has been such a quantity of anti-Hillary sentiment expressed by diarists & frontpagers? So it is natural that she she avoids this venue. Right?
I don't think she OWES it to this community to appear, or anything like that. Certainly doesn't need the funding that netroots sites can raise, either, with all the mega-corporate funds pouring into her coffers. However, I think if Clinton actually did diary on dKos, it would do her more good than harm.
She might not win over the hard-core anti-Clintonistas, but there are plenty of more moderate people here, who either support her already, or who might come to see her in a more favorable light. The tone of most posters would be civil towards her, because she is a United States Senator, and because she would be showing the fortitude to face a venue where opposition has been pretty stiff. Anti-Hillary posters might even be restrained from excesses of vituperation, because of the decrease in social support for their tone.
I know that when Senator Charles Schumer (my senator, BTW] diaried here a week or so after the Nov. 2006 elections, people jumped all over a negative and somewhat uncouth remark I made, troll-rated me, etc. And they were right. It was Sen. Schumer's first appearance here, he was thanking the Kos community for its efforts in retaking the Congress, and I should not have been surly to him. Yesterday, I personally troll-rated two anti-Hillary comments because they were juvenile, personally insulting, and added nothing to the discussion.
As it is, Hillary Clinton remains vulnerable to charges that she is staying out of the netroots kitchen because she can't take the heat.
This avoidance seems to be setting a bad, even ominous precedent for the next year. First, she dismisses those who are critical of her 2002 vote and her refusal to admit it was her mistake (a mistake either of judgment, or a cynical pander to an admin. she knew to be untrustworthy). After this dismissal, in order to avoid further inconvenient questions about her past votes, Iraq, and so forth, does Clinton plan to spend rest of the lead-up to the primary decision at ticketed and thoroughly vetted "town hall" meetings, like George W. Bush?
George W. Bush is a moral coward who is afraid to face the American people who dissent from his policies. What kind of moral courage does Hillary Clinton have in comparison? Showing a willingness to brave the flak from her critics might actually help her cause in these parts.
To those who support Hillary Clinton at this time, I would say: "Why doesn't your candidate ever brave the flak and address the netroots activists, who probably comprise a significant portion of the activist Democratic base? Why doesn't she show that she is not afraid of her own party's critics? Does her dismissal of criticism over her 2002 war vote augur that she will stand up to the right-wing attack machine, or suggest that she will choose to triangulate and pander to it?
You forgot Polling! my friend just reminded me. I ran a poll something like this one before, but this is jazzed up a little.