Maybe on the inside, but...
I think the 717 is a fine aircraft, very good for what it was designed for (short frequent hops) and very efficient. The airframe has paid its dues, and is probably one of the best around.
But I think the 717 does not fit very well with the Boeing catalog, nor is it a good fit with airlines who have varying size needs.
Look at SAS for example. They have, in addition to their older DC-9/MD-80 fleet (which will be going soon), 737-600, -700 and -800 models. So from essentially a single parts bin, and common mechanical and flight training, cover all their capacity needs between 100 and 180 seats. If they had the 717 instead of the 737-600, they would need to dramatically increase their costs in order to accomodate it.
The same arguement goes with Southwest, American, and all other airlines that have short-medium range needs of varying capacities. They need to either choose the Airbus 318-321 family, or the Boeing 737 family.
Also, the 717 suffers a little bit from what I have called the "SX syndrome". Does anyone remember the Intel 486SX processor? The SX processor was a 486 processor with a few capabilities literally switched off, and sold cheaper. The chip had all the capabilities of the 486, but had been intentionally handicapped to put in a different segment. The 717 is similar to this. the 717, while structually based on the MD-80, and with far more efficient engines, has a range of only 1300 miles(1800 on some versions), far less than the MD-80, which could fly up to 2600 miles. Boeing must have intentionally "hobbled" the 717 in order not to compete with the 737. This is also why the 717 is stuck in 100-seat category, although the plane can clearly be adapted up to 170 seats, as was shown with the MD-80.
While I understand Boeing's desire to streamline their catalog, I do find it a pity that the 717 will never be allowed to develop to its full potential.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.