It surely did. But I’m not sure it required more competence and strategic thinking than other Democratic presidents possessed. He benefited greatly from JFK’s popularity and death, especially on this issue, having one of the most successful mass movements in American history pushing toward the same goal, and being the head of the party of the elected officials he needed on board.
That’s why I called him a good obstructionist.
To widen the discussion, in the British context, I’d say Attlee (whose government established the postwar welfare state) and (through gritted teeth) Thatcher (who reversed a lot but not all of the assumptions that went with it). But for both a lot depended on having a solid parliamentary majority and a reliable (ish) team of cabinet members. In Attlee’s case, there were some powerful personalities who’d already had significant and high-profile responsibilities in the wartime coalition, and he was more the seemingly dull committee chairman holding the balance. Thatcher on the hand, after a few years balancing out the different tendencies in her party finally put her foot down and became very much the agends-driving boss (hence the joke about her ordering a steak for a dinner with her cabinet - “And the vegetables?” "Oh. they’ll have the same’).
PS: Re De Gaulle - he had his setbacks. Successful in getting himself recognised as leader of the Provisional Government, and seeing off the US-favoured alternative candidates, he none the less couldn’t get his way over the postwar Constitution and fell out with ministers, so went off in a huff and founded a party no-one wanted in government, until the military coup in Algeria in 1958. He got his way then, and survived 1968 - but lost a referendum on a relatively minor issue and resigned again .
Couple of suggestions of German politicians - Adenauer, Willy Brandt and Helmut Kohl - except that for all their successes, Brandt and Kohl had to go in fairly embarrassing circumstances.
As another British politician said, all political careers end in failure.