I strongly disagree (obviously ;)).
No, not everyone wants to use CC, but standard full copyright would of course be one of the licenses to choose from (and the default one), just like in Flickr.
It doesn't make sense to me that uploading media should be core functionality, but determining the license on that media should be some fringe thing you need install a plugin for.
And it makes even less sense that a system created for publishing text should not include a way to tell the world the copyright status of that text. Especially when that system is Free Software and prides itself of that fact.
Why does that factor in to it? Because when that system does not include a way to set a license it very strongly pushes you towards using full copyright (that is: unfree). (C) comes automatically, (CC) demands a lot of effort (At least these steps: actually knowing about the possibility, caring enough to do something about it, understanding that a plugin might be the thing to do about it, finding the correct plugin, setting it up properly)
If setting a license is built in the default would still be (C), and (CC) would still demand some effort. But it would be a possibility you would become aware of when seeing the setting, and the effort to choose it would be minimal.
Doesn't it make sense to have a way of choosing the rights and restrictions on the works you publish built into the publishing tool?
I'm not sure I understand what you meant about wordpress.com, Ipstenu. Are you saying .com does have a system like this in place, or that you agree that it would make sense there, but not in .org? Or am I totally misunderstanding you?
"licensing your personal content on your personal site is your own, personal, business"
Yes, just like privacy settings, number and length of items in the feed, default link category, remote publishing and every thing else you can adjust in the built in settings is my personal business. But it shouldn't all be pushed out into plugins because of that.