Writing about the Obama Administration actions against confidential journalistic sources and whistleblowers, Glenn Greenwald writes:

Along with the apathetic, who by definition pose no threat to anyone, prominent cheerleaders for the President and his party, who labor every day to keep them in power, are the last ones who will be subjected to such programs. Obviously, nobody in the Obama administration is monitoring the phone calls at the Center for American Progress or ones placed to the large stable of columnists, bloggers and TV stars who daily spout White House talking points or devote each day to attacking the President's political opponents. That's why purported civil liberties concerns manifest only when the other party is in power, but vanish when their own is. Partisan loyalists are indifferent to their leader's ability to deter dissent; if anything, they're happy that their party's leader wields such power and can use it against political adversaries.

While I think the language is too strong (particularly on being happy that the Leader is wielding such power against political enemies), as a general matter, partisans are less concerned about what their Leader is doing. But I think a "so what?" is in order (to me as well on the Libya Congressional authorization question ) in this sense - did anyone expect otherwise? It is time to readjust expectations - there are team players on both sides. I think in general members of the Democratic team have less need for contortions, but will do so as required. I understand Greenwald's frustration, but fixation on what the "team" players are doing is not productive imo. I used to do it myself, but no more. At least, less of it.

Speaking for me only