Clinton had two terms. The majority of the damage done was in the second.
No matter how much it did to galvanize the Republican party, just what did that galvanization do? What good did it do for the country?
The only thing that I can think of is that it helped Bush to win and be in the right place at the right time.
He deserves a second term. We owe him that, no matter how many feathers he may have ruffled.
He is a do-person and do people make others angry often.
People who do nothing don't have that problem. That is why you made that statement. It is because Clinton did nothing!
Let me rephrase: A Bush I second term would have been worse than a Klinton term. But, just one answer to your question is welfare reform. Another is the damned near clean sweep of governor's offices by Republicans in many states, including Texas, Michigan, Ohio. Neither of those phenomena would have occured in a Bush I second term.
Oftentimes, the best thing a president can do is step aside and let America guide itself.
These are not such times.