The recession was over before Clinton took office and was back before he left. He left behind the dot.com bubble and the accounting scandals. Mainly though he was constrained, in terms of taxes and spending, by 6 years of a Republican-controlled congress and did not mess up what he was given that much.
What he inherited was a world with no significant military opposition, an intact industrial base, and low (compared to today) immigration. What he left was an ascendant China, Putin, Osama bin Laden—all of whom required increased defense spending. He left a gutted industrial base, increased low-skill immigration, and ushered in a new focus on chasing after bubbles instead of actually making things.
What he would be coming into this time would not be good times that Reagan left; what he would be coming into this time is the mess he made.
Reaganomics I understand—theories of Milton Freedman and Arthur Laffer, the fed policies of Volcker, specific legislation by Kemp and others. Even if one does not agree with Reaganonimcs, it is at least something definable. Things you can point to. What, exactly, was Clintonomics? Have the lapdog media terrify people that a mild, cyclic, recession was the new great depression, and then give all the credit to you when it is gone before even taking office? And then coast on that for the next eight years and leave the bill to someone else? Is not even an option this time, we are coasting to perdition.
During his terms the e economy became the driving force, not only here, though originating here, but worldwide. He had nothing to do with it. The fallacy that he did is often repeated by him and Shrillary and the lamestream does not correct it.