Obama and Security: A Contradiction

I was watching BBC this morning, before the G20 summit. They spoke about how security has never been tighter for Obama. He has 200 secret security agents protecting him, his own helicopters, a fleet of helicopters used as decoys; he has had a special fleet of cars shipped over for he and his staff as well. They spoke about how the security is unprecedented because he's the first black president and the first among any of the westernized countries, and that there are many people who would be looking to "take a shot" at him. In doing so, the media are almost giving Obama hero-like status, because just to take one step outside of his house is just so incredibly brave especially when there are so many people trying to hurt him.

At the same time, they spoke about President Obama's immense popularity, and his 80% approval ratings in Europe and especially outside of the United States.

Is there a small contradiction here? The most popular man in the history of the world has the greatest security times 7. Why is this necessary if everyone loves him? Or is the media implying in this that most people are racist and that's why this is necessary. Maybe it's that most people who don't have racist pastors for 20 years are mostly racist. Who knows, but they seem to make a big deal out of it.

I believe the president should be protected as fully as he can be at all times, but what's interesting to me is the coverage this is given, in comparison with GW Bush.

GW Bush was a hated man in Europe and no one ever made a big deal about the security, maybe because GW never made a big deal of it. With GW Bush, peace protesters wanted him dead, even nobel peace prize winners wanted him to die (that wacko from ireland - yep - google it).

Everyone's used to the double standard the media has for democrats versus republicans. This is just another example.