No, it would not.
I'm perfectly willing to give Clinton the credit for what happened with the stock market You should not: he has nothing to do with that.
if he will admit that it was a very BAD, dishonest thing that was happening. How was it dishonest?
If I sell my neighbor a car knowing that it has a cracked head, and I don't tell him, and he goes away thinking he has a good car, I have stolen from him. When it breaks, he has a legitimate claim against me, and in a perfect world where things could be proven, I could go to jail. YOu are correct, of course, except this has nothing to do with the stock prices.
Stock prices reflect optimism of the public. The public felt very optimistic about the future. There were reasons for that: jobs were plentiful, and the American companies had huge profts for several years in arrow. They should've realized that this was abnormal and will not last long (this used to be taught by parents in this country and passed from generaton to generation -- until that "Greatest" generation that won WWII; since then an everage Joe and Jane jas no concept of yesterday and wants tomorrow today.)
This and purely human nature led peple to believe that the party will continue. If one believes that, it is indeed rational to buy stocks. Joe and Jane started to trade stocks via Internet --- and made a lot of money. Nobody complained. Then the realization hit that it's over, and some lost money. Now they were looking for guilty parties --- "the fat cats" on Wall Street, corporate management, president --- anybody but themselves.
Stock prices reflect the beliefs of the buyers and sellers about the future. Presidents have very little to do with that: YOUR view of the president contributes to YOUR optimism about the future and YOUR desire to buy stocks. But whether you have a job matters infinitely more.