You could say it either way. Its clearly established that the individual and that individual's subjective view are the topic. It did not change in the next sentence.
I said you were not careful with your words. You were also not careful in your questioning of how Jhhnn got confused:
Jhhnn, I'm not saying Obama was a shitty person. I'm clearly saying that the individual and their subjective view of the person that holds the office might say that because he thinks the person is shitty there is no need to respect the office.
Jhhnn, how did you get lost here?
It should have been: Jhhnn, I'm not saying Obama was a shitty person. I'm clearly saying that the individual and their subjective view of the person that holds the office might say that because, if he thinks the person is shitty, there is no need to respect the office. You left out the if and didn't set the clause with commas.
But the point is that when speaking to somebody who may wish to find something wrong with what you are saying or is, so to speak, predisposed to look for faults in your thinking, it is better to look at your language and try to find how it may be read ambiguously thus leaving it open to other ways of reading it. I personally got what you wanted to say but had you said it as I suggested he couldn't have read into it what he did.
You could also have simply straightened out what you said and not questioned why he understood you differently than intended. You seem to have gotten feelings involved with being misunderstood. I think I am, for example, rather good at noticing careless language because it is a mistake I make all the time.