Absolutely correct. Just because Obama is worse doesn’t mean that we should let Bush II off the hook. Bush’s deficits make you look back favorably to Clinton’s budgets, some of which were balanced or very close to it.
1. Clinton didn't do anything for that budget, it was a Contract with America: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America
2. Bush was in office during a major conflict and this conflict was used by the opposition party to do what they wanted with spending, attaching everything known to God to defense and Iraq/Afghanistan supplemental spending bills.
You're giving both men credit/discredit out of context or over which they had little control, they just happened to occupy that position when a series of events unfolded. Bush was dealt a bad hand and did very well, the best one can reasonably expect especially after 2006 when the House (Which controls spending) went Democrat.