Not sure what reason that would be.
Look, I don't know why this is so hard.
When Obama bragged about his "eight months" versus Bush's eight years, he discarded 2009 completely from the mix. I do hope you remember Obama was president during 2009. Why did he do this? Perhaps because in his view, 2009 was still part of Bush's administration.
Now, very slowly...
If this is valid - and I'm not saying it is or isn't - why is it less valid to dismiss Bush's first year when calculating Bush's "8 years?" To assign those employment problems to Clinton's leftovers? Or if Bush's first year is counted solely to Bush, why does Obama escape responsibility for his first year?
Good God, is anyone else having this much trouble following this?