Personally I find blocks far more intuitive than Python's iterators and generators, but that is a subjective thing.
WRT Magical Classes, I'm not a fan of everything being stored in a dict. It seems grossly under-engineered to expose the underbelly as a basic "dumb" object; at the very least, it should've been a "Class Metadata" object with attached support methods to make it easier (safer?) to inspect or update.
And lastly: there is NEVER just one way to do it!! Witness the confusion n00b's feel over the join() method: ",".join([LIST]) where the more intuitive would probably be [LIST].join(",")... but if you MUST have join() in the string module, why not support the latter as a redirect to the former?
Seriously: this sort of dogma can make certain kinds of algorithms very messy to code.
However, my biggest beef with Python is that I seem to have to write a metric buttload of boilerplate and end up with something very Java-esque... <sigh>
I completely disagree with having to write lots of boilerplate and java-esque code. I've written huge amounts of Python, and seeing Java after that really made me wince. What does Python lack that makes you feel you need boilerplate?
I don't think the one-way-to-do-it thing is that dogmatic, really. It does make code nicer when you don't have to be aware of various aliased methods, and there are less ways of making identical code look different.
>> [1,2,3].each
=> #<Enumerable::Enumerator:0x801820f10>
>> RUBY_VERSION
=> "1.8.7" >> RUBY_VERSION
=> "1.8"
>> require "enumerator"
=> true
>> [1,2,3].each
=> #<Enumerable::Enumerator:0x29326940>
Python's iterators are more usable in many situations than the Ruby block system. I can return an iterator, stick it in a variable, call another function with it that returns another iterator, and so on.
Python's classes also seem cleaner and less magical than Ruby's. For example, a method on a class is just an attribute that happens to be a method. Much more intuitive than Ruby in my opinion.
I'm also fond of Python's idea that "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it".
I agree that Python does have its fair share of strangeness, but that fades away with time (you don't notice it).