Bad is relative.
The price of war is that innocent people will get killed, and you don't exactly have a choice in all of the wars you fight. I realize there are candidates more in favour of peace than others, but the practical realities of the world have something to say about it. How much oppression of women is worth preventing the death of children over? How many people would the taleban be murdering were it not for the allied presence there? No doubt we can always try and do better, but peace required everyone agree, war needs only one party to decide. And make no mistake about it there is a clash of ideals in the world today. Between Al Qaeda and it's allies, and everyone else. And the US is involved because it's part of the world, and you can't just bury your heads in the sand any more than you could in WW1 or WW2.
If these programmers' work was actually influential in the election's outcome (I doubt it, but for the sake of argument...)
How much did any single ad impact the election? Does any tool that keeps voters interested and likely to go to the polls matter? Were they using their vast databases of people to e-mail spam requests for donations? Every little bit does something, not necessarily something good, but tools are just that, and they can be used well or not at all.
You are, I'm sorry, blatantly naive about the world. Opposite the people who stand for peace are people who stand for nuking afghanistan and pakistan, and the really bad people are the ones who would quite happily for a new Islamic caliphate from morroco to pakistan and kill all of the crusaders (christians), Infidels (Jews) and idol worshipers (shia's) in between. You may think Obama is a bad person, but the truth is we're all bad people. There are literally millions of people around the world at risk of starvation, who are dying of treatable diseases, there are people in the world trying to deny women the chance at an education and healthcare and we're sitting here posting on /. Omission and indifference are killing far more people every year than drone strikes.
6 million children die every year from starvation. (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/11/17/italy.food.summit/). That's about 11 per minute. So in the time it took you to write your post, and me to reply (about an hour) 3x more people have died due to the solvable problem of hunger than innocent children to drone strikes. And yet.. here we are. And most of those people who do die from hunger do so because some corrupt government (or local warlord or the like) is stealing their food or otherwise helping them along the path to dying.
I'm not saying drones are the right tool for the job, they aren't, and they're making the US more enemies, but 4 years from now you're going to have enemies and a new President who will have to deal with them. Such is the world unfortunately. Whomever won the US presidental race would have woken up this morning to the same harsh reality of a persistent low intensity war around the world, states at risk of collapse due to these extremists, a war in mali, about 40 gun murders a day, about 100 deaths due to car accidents etc. etc. etc. Death and destruction is everywhere, and the US has a lot of enemies, some more deserved than others, but enemies none the less.