"When the rubber meets the road, it ultimately is about code."

Too vague to be meaningful. Sure, but how does the code get written? I don't think anybody would claim that Chandler would be technically impossible in a less dynamic language. Only social problems held it back.

"Certainly, Chandler had its own internal social and political issues, but what project does not?"

Look at any successful project. You'll see that, while they may have had some issues, they did not *consist entirely* of internal issues and mistakes we thought the industry learned 20 years ago.

"It's the nature of software to have fluid requirements and efforts that lead to dead ends. The question is then, can the development environment that was is in compensate for this?"

These are social questions, not technical ones. They certainly don't sound like anything which would be harder in Python or any other "dynamic language".

"Apparently, the magic wand of Python was not enough."

Nobody claimed Python was a "magic wand", or that a programming language can compensate for making every mistake possible. Building blindingly obvious straw men ("Python is a magic wand" -> "here's a failed Python project" -> "dynamic languages are unsuitable") is not useful to anybody.