The problem with electing someone who used each elective office to begin the quest for the next one up the ladder is that he never stuck around in any one office long enough to put his record up for re-election; America elected a perpetual candidate, not a leader, not someone who understands what it means to govern.

And FDR policies (Social Security chief among them) still help Dems win elections.

Obama may not really be as gifted as he has been amazingly lucky. Others have pointed out the  fortunate circumstances of his earlier elections, but he had some pretty terrific advantages in the Presidential race, too. On the one hand, his most serious competition in the primary, a woman, represented much larger, more unprecedented and scarier cultural change than the election of a man, even a black man. While, on the other hand, electing the first African American represented the inspiring fulfillment of one of the most important liberal promises of the last half century. Plus, the Democratic establishment was willing to indulge in some some pretty heavy handed manipulations to ensure that the woman didn't get the nomination.

In the general, he reaped the benefit of a near collapse of the economy and, of course, of not being the standard bearer for the party held responsible for that economic mess -- but instead, a member of the party that had overseen one of the most prosperous periods in our recent history.

Perhaps Obama will win a second term -- but he may have to work much harder than he has in the past to earn that win. He will have to run on accomplishments, not just who he is and what he represents historically.

To wit,  I don't think your definition of "good politician" agrees with common usage. Beyond winning elections,  a good politician should be able to move opinion on policy matters, both in official dealings as legislator or executive, and (especially for the President) in his message to the public. Those are skills separate from the "stateman" set of skills which you allude to: a statesmen is someone who rises about the political realities to put his efforts into the right policy, even at a political cost.
Bush was no statesman, but he certainly excelled at making Congress bend to his will, and convincing the public  of the need for the war on terror and war on Iraq.

Isn't defining a politician's skills only in terms of winning elections similar to the practice of evaluating corporate CEO's only in terms of the present stock valuation? By that measure, Chainsaw Al Dunlop was a great CEO; in fact, he ran company after company into the ground. Wasn't it relevant that Obama did NOT have a track record of leading on legislation (phony resume building by his IL Senate colleaugues doesn't count)? If Obama is running the Dem name into the ground, he is a very limited politician indeed.
And what about his speeches? I would say, compared to Bush's speeches, they are terrible POLITICAL failures. Sure, you ground your teeth  listening to Bush, but he did move opinion on the issues. I can't name one issue where Obama has moved public opinion by his speeches. All he does is hem and haw and say how many difficult choices there are. How about making a choice and standing for it? Would that be too difficult?

There are many reasons the electorate voted for him. They hate the Clintons, we were ready for a black president, and I say that knowing people might accuse me of being racist, but I do think it helped. We as a culture want to demonstrate we have moved beyond our racist past and it benefits him. He was also an blank slate and the media were unabashedly bias in his favor. These things have nothing to do with his skill, it has to do with being at the right time at the right place.

by his ability to get votes for themselves, I think it is impossible to deny that Obama is a great politician.

obama is, at best, a mediocre politician. frankly, he has delusions of mediocrity as a public speaker. go back and watch film of kennedy's speeches, contrast and compare. kennedy had a personal dynamic not seen since. clinton came close on occasion, when he really let go, but still not on par with kennedy.

having said that is not say that obama is a bad speaker, just lacking the magnetism that a truly great public speaker has.

if you take out the AA votes (pretty much a given), and other minority votes, who voted for him solely because of his race (yes, yes, i know, votes are votes, regardless of the reason), he really didn't do all that well in the general election.

to address the "but votes are votes, regardless of the reason" issue: those were votes (AA's & other minorities) he didn't really need to work for, they were pretty much a given. the surprise would have been him not getting them.

he's an "ok" politician, and that "okness" is what we're now witness to, in his handling of the health reform bill, among other things.