The first group views terrorism as a magic trump card. Whatever we do to stop terrorism is worth the price we pay. (These folks also tend to believe in other issues as trumping everything else) Most of these folks are plugged into the establishment in some way -- military, legislative, security, and now reporters. For these guys, Snowden is the enemy. The story here is all about him and how we're going to "get him"
The other group of people are technically-inclined folks and, well, libertarian-type weirdos (And I say that as a little-l libertarian). We view the enemy as the ideology that enough is never enough: the enemy is the thought that we should continue collecting and collating data on each American citizen (and the rest of the world) until we have perfect knowledge about everybody. For them, the story is the disaster the first group has created out of the country. Snowden is just an example, a very small piece of a very big story.
80% of folks, however, could care less, as long as Farmville keeps working. What we're seeing in the press is this battle between insiders like Gregory and outsiders like Greenwald for control over the narrative. Is this going to be just another "bad guy on the run" story? Or will it actually have an impact on public opinion?
Short run, I'm not optimistic the 80% are going to see the minutely-studied drones that BigCorp and BigGov are turning them into. But these things have a way of building on each other. The smart move for government here, if it wants to remain legitimate, is to make some major concessions right now while keeping important capabilities intact. It's not an "us or them" posture. But that seems to be what we're going to get.
I just wish the focus would get off of Snowden and Greenwald. Just like Assange before them, once the story becomes about the person and not the issue, the narrative (argument) is lost.