<p>Clinton, imho, was effective, very much so. </p>
<p>You know, these “candidates” run on an ideological platform a and THEN they get into office and have to deal with the real circumstances they’ve been dealt, and not the dream presidency they’ve been peddling on the campaign trail.</p>
<p>Of all the Presidents in my lifetime, at least, Clinton and Reagan both stepped into those circumstances and made things much, much better. What else can we ask for? </p>
<p>The job is an octopus. You can’t get it into the box. These guys just dealt with what came their way, with who came their way, and left things better than before they had showed up,(In most cases.) Who can argue with that. </p>
<p>I’ve always thought Reagan was no intellectual giant (brainy), but great with people. Clinton was an intellectual powerhouse AND great with people. JMO.</p>
<p>I think the President, whoever it might be, gets way too much credit for the good things that happen and also too much blame for the bad things that occur during their Presidency. When the GNP is in the trillions of dollars, it is highly doubtful an administration really has that much influence over the economy. The American economy is the sum product of trillions of dollars of transactions that no one person can appreciably change to any real degree. Markets respond to many things, but it is highly unlikely the govt can move it in a certain direction all that much unless there are external factors, such as oil price shocks, inflation and cyclical swings in economic output. For example, during the Clinton Presidency, he was extremely fortunate to preside over an incredible high tech and internet boom which would have occurred no matter who was occupying his chair. Consequently, the GNP received a major boost which allowed the president during this period of time to take credit for the good economy. I don’t think you can explain a lot of this because of the IQ of Clinton.</p>