The author also seems unaware of the disanalogy between their case and the one Friedersdorf offers, which is not surprising because it doesn't focus on the strongest part of his case: not the drone strikes, but the 'kill list':
Obama established one of the most reckless precedents imaginable: that any president can secretly order and oversee the extrajudicial killing of American citizens. Obama's kill list transgresses against the Constitution as egregiously as anything George W. Bush ever did. It is as radical an invocation of executive power as anything Dick Cheney championed. The fact that the Democrats rebelled against those men before enthusiastically supporting Obama is hackery every bit as blatant and shameful as anything any talk radio host has done.
The difference between "enacted perfectly constitutional policy I don't like which had negative repercussions on a lot of people" and "enacted unconstitutional policy that fundamentally subverts much of the rule of law and which the president doesn't appear to think is a problem because he's a good guy and won't use it for bad purposes" is one of kind, not degree, and to elide the difference between the two is to blur the boundary between legitimate policy differences, however fundamental, and abuses of power that are unacceptable no matter who engages in them.
And, heck, I'm not even going to say that given that, one shouldn't vote for Obama. If you think he's the best option, vote for him. But just be clear on the nature of the things he's doing.