Well, if he is, you didn't hear it from me since this is apparently an insult when directed to African-American politicians whose silver tongues (if they have them) are apparently to be assumed and not commented upon. Just how one would sensitively compliment such a politician is left unclear, although perhaps the recent Daily Show bit about Obama "stopping time with his mind" to save a little girl from an impending auto accident would be OK.
President Bush is being criticized for saying that Obama is an "attractive and articulate guy" as if these are "low ball compliments." I don't think that is true with respect to saying a pol is articulate. In my lifetime, there have been ten presidents. Three (Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton) were what I would call articulate. Being able to string some English sentences together does not make you Daniel Webster.
But, with respect to Obama, criticizing Bush for referring to him as "attractive and articulate" is just a tad ironic. What other qualities might possibly support Obama's candidacy? It certainly isn't his experience as a politician or his legislative accomplishments. He has neither. It's not his foreign policy expertise or innovative policy ideas. He lacks the former and, if he possesses the latter, no one knows it yet.
Near as I can tell, he is in the mix because he gave a good speech at the Democratic Convention, looks good, and presents a multiplicity of identities. (as Mark Steyn put it, he is black and white, Hawaiian and Kansan, Christian and Muslim. He looks good, speaks well and might be whatever you want him to be.
On a more serious note, this type of racial "shut your mouth" retards rather than promotes dialogue. And it may hurt black candidates. Presidential candidates have to be aggressively vetted. If racial sensitivity dictates that a candidate be treated with kid gloves - even unto regulation of how he may be complimented, that candidate will never be vetted - or elected. This hyperalertness to racial slights won't help Obama become President.