<So, Clinton set out to cut the deficit and provide aid to the infrastructure. Cutting the deficit became sexy, and a lot of folks jumped on the bandwagon. They cut it so much there wasn't much for the infrastructure.

Over time he took some chances, including a couple of standoffs with the Rs over deficits, and the government was shut down. That was politically risky. But he stayed with the goal of reducing deficit spending and restoring confidence so as to reduce the long-term interest rates.

And the economy boomed. There are folks who won't give the Clinton administration [credit] for a thing. These same folks credit Bush with avoiding a recession which was inevitable.



Clinton had as much to do with the boom of the '90s (or the most recent recession, which started on his watch, to be fair) as a rooster has with making the sun come up, although this isn't what the rooster thinks. If anything, his distraction with his Oval Office honeys may have kept him from screwing up an already healthy economy.

As for real credit, he does deserve some for NAFTA which, however flawed, was a serious attempt to free up trade in our hemisphere, and Clinton was up against some strong Democratic bases in supporting it.

Your bit on him trying to save "infrastructure" is interesting. What "infrastructure?" Surely you don't place the massive income redistribution efforts of the government under "infrastructure?" If not, then what?

I found an old article on how the Republicans should have handled Clinton after his huge PR victory with the shutdown. It's old news now, but a lot of the advice applies to Republicans now.

In particular, the last sentence:

The Republican congressional leadership faces a crucial choice: focus on making a difference or holding onto power. If it chooses the latter it will likely fail at both.

Right now the Republicans--particularly Bush--seem focused on the elections to the point of abandoning Republican ideas. I hope I'm wrong.