Of course the "clintoon/greenspan economy" was really the continuation of the Reagan/Volker economy. But blaming clintoon for this seems like a stretch. He had no more to do with the subject of this article, than he did with making the economy run well. The tax increase clintoon cites as the reason for the great economy is phoney rhetoric. The economy was already headed up when the 93 tax increase took effect.
Bashing clintoon here implies he was responsible for the growth. What we see in the economy is the natural cycle. No more no less. But hey, its as good a reason as any to bash the phoney.
THAT'S what they relied on to defeat the impeachment and his continued crimes: "How good a job is he doing as president?" (How do you like the economy? being often expressly stated and always implied) was the quesion: AND never "Is he fit to be president?"
Thus, the hypocrisy in his being "given credit" for an economy that WASN'T all that good is even more stunning.
PArticularly, as you point out, that the upswing he was riding BEGAN under Reagan, and the "bump" at the end of the Bush administration was equally exaggerated to elect Clinton the first time.
Did you notice that the economic news suddenly turned "rosey reporting" in mid-November '92 (giving him credit EVEN BEFORE he took office!), after the numbers actually starting to rise in mid-September '92.