All-in-all I think Python has done a remarkably good job at living up to that quote, with three caveats:
The first is that I think actually achieving a hard-mode form of that quote and maintaining it through the lifetime of the language is impossible in practice and theory. (Even "mostly" living up to the quote is an achievement.)
The second is that I am unsure about the obvious qualifier. Certainly I can recognize pythonic and non-pythonic constructs in python; but whether the difference is actually obvious or just a result of experience combining with community consensus I can't say.
The third is that I don't think the language is Pareto efficient between readability and most other variables. For instance, I've had code criticized as non-pythonic that was just as readable as the offered pythonic version, but had greater run-time efficiency. (To be fair, this is only an issue if you define the 'pythonic' way to be the 'one obvious way'.)
The first is that I think actually achieving a hard-mode form of that quote and maintaining it through the lifetime of the language is impossible in practice and theory. (Even "mostly" living up to the quote is an achievement.)
The second is that I am unsure about the obvious qualifier. Certainly I can recognize pythonic and non-pythonic constructs in python; but whether the difference is actually obvious or just a result of experience combining with community consensus I can't say.
The third is that I don't think the language is Pareto efficient between readability and most other variables. For instance, I've had code criticized as non-pythonic that was just as readable as the offered pythonic version, but had greater run-time efficiency. (To be fair, this is only an issue if you define the 'pythonic' way to be the 'one obvious way'.)