Mercurial is so much easier for day to day usage, I work with both and need to explain so much more when getting a new person up to speed with git. The "detached head" state is very difficult to explain.
Since git has largely won the dvcs war and I'm a one man developer having to inter-operate with others it makes sense for me to suck it up and use git myself.
You might try SmartGit/Hg. I've been using it for a year now and find it vastly superior to the Git command line.
As one example mentioned by the gp, the "detached heads" are a breeze: Just click the Lost Heads checkbox and they all show up in the visual log like any other commit. It was when I saw this that the concept of detached heads made sense to me.
Of course, when I've suggested SmartGit to people, a few have replied, "Oh no, I would never use a GUI for this, it's command line only for me."
To each his own, but I don't understand that. To me, source control is an inherently visual activity just like text editing, and a visual tool is a good match.
So for anyone who is willing to consider a visual tool, I highly recommend it.
I'm mostly ok now though since I rammed enough of git's weirdness into my head that I can work with it (that and phpstorm/pycharm have nice basic git support).
Mercurial may be easier to use than git, but Github is easier to use than Mercurial. Switching to a workflow where all commits are made to forks and all updates to master come through pull requests largely solves the problems with using bare git.
Which is kinda the problem we're discussing here. Git is far less usable without Github and yet all the workflow niceties that we've come to rely upon are locked up in Github's proprietary implementation. The more developers come to rely upon Github features, the more locked into Github we are and the more difficult it would be if Github were to go away or become obnoxious.
