The strongest advocate for the internet was Al Gore, for which he took ridiculous partisan abuse from Repubs. Clinton backed Gore fully. There is no similarity between Bush 42's "advocacy" for the internet and the Clinton/Gore admin's. Rather, while Bush 42 may have "stayed out of the way" on this--in fact had virtually no notable interest beyond passing--Clinton/Gore were advocates.

Clinton's impact on the tax code was negligible? McGehee, LJD, Herb, all you other righties, want to set James straight? Remember how Clinton raised taxes so high your hero GW had to come to save us all from ruin? Oh, never mind. James, let's play it your way--Clinton "stayed out of the way" as a magical economy not dependent on magical tax cuts helped reduce the deficit (coincidentally only after Clinton came into office stating that cutting the defict would be a prime priority). Then, right on cue after Clinton, the deficits then shot up just as they had under Reagan and Bush 41. All just magical coincidental happenings. Yeah, right.

What relations did Clinton strengthen? The way he handled NAFTA, the Kyoto Treaty, Kosovo, the Israeli/Palenstinian peace intiatives, efforts to ending violence in Ireland, and on and on made us probably the most beloved country on the planet. He led the world's greatest superpower without arrogance and was willing to listen to others and understand their concerns. This in sad contrast to where Bush 43 has taken us. I believe you were either too partisan then or now to perceive this reality James. That or you are playing stupid on purpose. I would hate to believe that.

The Al Qaeda charge is extremely hypocritical as well as anachronistic. The Repubs opposed many of Clintons' efforts to get Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. And pre-9/11, these were small time thugs and you surely do not believe it was politically possible to attack and invade Afghanistan to capture a few criminals? etc. Clinton correctly saw that Al Qaeda was a growing threat and did what he could to get them as appropriate within the context at that time; unfortunately, his hands were largely tied by an extremely partisan impeachment effort and irrational opposition to anything Clinton tried to do by righties so blinded by their hatred for Clinton they lost site of the country's best interest. That Al Qaeda was perceived at the time as small time thugs is borne out by GW's completely ignoring them despite Clintons' warnings during the admin transition until it was too late and 9/11 came.

Clinton's stewardship compared to GW's? It's my turn to say Please!

Please. I already gave him credit for NAFTA and whatnot but that's a negative--staying out of the way. And Bush 41 was doing the same thing, so it's not like it was a directional change. Ditto not taxing the Internet.

Clinton's impact on the tax code was negligible.

The interest rate policy was set by Greenspan and the Fed, not Clinton. And there wasn't much deficit reduction until the very end. And reduction was almost completely accidental--i.e., a revenue windfall rather than significant spending reforms.

Which relations exactly did Clinton strengthen? The Cold War was over, so he was nicer to Russia than previous presidents. Aside from that, what exactly?

Clinton also let al Qaeda fester on his watch, ignoring two declarations of war and taking only nominal action against numerous attacks. Not exactly great stewardship on that front.

Things started to go downhill almost from the moment Bush took office.

The operative word in that sentence is "almost". Factually, things started going downhill before Bush took office.

To give the devil his due, Clinton's great talent was in making people feel good and that has a beneficial effect on people's attitudes about the economy, the stock market, and business investment. In this area Bush has definitely been a horrible president.

He took in massive amounts of tax revenue because of the Dot.Com boom. That windfall, combined with a Republican Congress that naturally could not agree on much with him, led to a balanced budget.

Your praise of taxcuts without decreasing spending (Reagan and both Bushes) is no different than advocating running up the credit card debt while cutting your income, all the while planning to let the kids pay for it later. Not a very moral position vis-a-vis your dealings with your kids, but it will let you live a little better lifestyle for now.

Reagan gets a fair amount of credit for the economy for some things he actually did (the tax cuts, chiefly) and some things that he continued (deregulation, which started under Carter).

The Bush 41 recession had ended by mid-1992 but not in public perception. We had massive growth the final quarter of 1992. Then the boom hit after the World Wide Web hit in 1993. A recession started in late 2000 but became official in early 2001 (three consecutive quarters, two in Clinton's term, one in Bush's).

I don't blame Clinton for the recession any more than I credit him for the boom. I do give Clinton substantial credit for not getting in the way, especially his staunch support of free trade internationally (NAFTA, WTO, etc.). Indeed, he's been better than Bush on that score.

I don't give Bush 43 much credit for the current boom, either. Yes, he pushed through a tax cut which probably helped stimulate the economy. But tax rates are already relatively low. The Kemp-Roth-Reagan cuts were massive, from a top rate of 70% to one in the high 30s. Going from 38 to 35 is just less of an impact--and we obviously can't go to 18.

Things started to go downhill almost from the moment Bush took office. If you sit at the big desk you get the credit for what goes right and the blame for what goes wrong.

What has gone right under Bush? I mean unless you run an oil company...

You may be correct re Pres influence on the economy, James. Interesting though how the right credited Reagan for building a great economy after a recession while running up trillions in debt and now credit GW for at least improving the economy after years of doldrums while doing the same, whereas a basically continuous great economy during Clinton's admin as he paid down the deficit "just happened" or, again, gets attributed to Reagan. And of course, the Bush recession gets credited to Clinton as well. The righties do some amazing mental gymnastics on these kinds of things, one must admit.

And the administration in charge is largely post hoc ergo propter hoc. Clinton had virtually nothing to do with the dot.com boom or the recession that began as his second term was winding down.