Its different when it's "our team", isn't it? ;P
Yes, there's an element of that there. I won't deny that.
The problem for me is this: how do you deal with non-state actors, operating from a country that you're not at war with, who are planning attacks against you, with the country in question unable or unwilling to cooperate in apprehending said actors?
Drones are the current answer to this problem, but the way that it is implemented is what's troubling. Congress has ceded their power on this to the Executive. The Executive doesn't have to report to another branch of Government when deciding who's on the Kill List and when/where they can be taken out. It's not like for warrants, where the authorities have to go to a special court to show the evidence. All decision-making rights is left to the executive, with no oversight, no real accountability. You're absolutely right that we don't mind this power with Obama, but when it's President Rubio or President (Jeb) Bush it will no doubt give us pause.
The other dimension of this is political - if the US is attacked, and it later became known that the Executive refused to take action given prior knowledge of the attack because he didn't want to use drones, then it has the potential to become political suicide. You only have to look as far as the hysteria around Benghazi as an example to show how an alledged weakness in foreign policy can cause great political harm. That of course is not a justification to drop bombs on innocent people, but it surely is a variable in the terrible calculus that is the drone program.