I think that it was Dan Drezner from Fletcher who made the observation, but most of the excitement around wikileaks appears to be centered around those unfamiliar with how diplomacy functions. The "informed public" in gov't, academia, and even journalism doesn't see as many reasons for excitement.

One of the things that we do in overseas missions is to try to convince the host governments to support our point of view on issues ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous. We don't "bully", after all, we're diplomats. But we do engage to the limits outlined in our instructions from Washington. Many times the host gov't doesn't agree, and life goes on.

In the CIA cases, Justice cases and those of other government officials, there is little expectation that anything meaningful can result, but the resulting aggravation between us and our various partners could do even more damage.

I would also point out that we don't get to pick and choose our issues. As dumb as any particular demarshmallow may appear, we have to follow instructions and deliver it, sometimes multiple times. Life still goes on.