One thing I never understood, how drone attacks were a scandal. Yes, he ordered the killing of people. And the legality of these killings is indeed arguable, in the sense that the legality of the whole war is arguable. But I don't see huge protest marches against those wars.

Yes, sometimes the missile strike killed the wrong people. Again, horrible. But do people really think that bomb strikes performed by other presidents killed only "bad guys"? If anything, my interpretation of the situation is that Obama was more transparent than previous administrations, and that drones and drone strikes have reduced the human cost. Both through precision, but also because it is "better" to kill the leader in his bed, than his 50 soldiers in a gun fight.

No-one objected when he ordered a team of soldiers to fly in and kill Bin Laden, why does it become a scandal if you do the same thing with a missle? For those that say "but it was Bin Laden", as the military personnel responsible for the strike explained at the time, they flew missions like that every week.

Would it have been better if Obama had lauched indiscriminative airstrikes on anonymous coordinates, with no camera footage and analysis? Just "we killed 3 bad guys yesterday"?

As an aside, your original statement was that all presidents were involvd in a corruption scandal.