Which, not only is ugly and slow, seems clunky.
It may take some getting used to, but this is the pythonic way of doing it. As has been already pointed out, the alternatives are worse. But there is one other advantage of doing things this way: polymorphism.
The central idea behind duck typing is that "if it walks and talks like a duck, then it's a duck." What if you decide that you need to subclass string so that you can change how you determine if something can be converted into a float? Or what if you decide to test some other object entirely? You can do these things without having to change the above code.
Other languages solve these problems by using interfaces. I'll save the analysis of which solution is better for another thread. The point, though, is that python is decidedly on the duck typing side of the equation, and you're probably going to have to get used to syntax like this if you plan on doing much programming in Python (but that doesn't mean you have to like it of course).
One other thing you might want to take into consideration: Python is pretty fast in throwing and catching exceptions compared to a lot of other languages (30x faster than .Net for instance). Heck, the language itself even throws exceptions to communicate non-exceptional, normal program conditions (every time you use a for loop). Thus, I wouldn't worry too much about the performance aspects of this code until you notice a significant problem.