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.
Yep, the diabolical thing about big media is they put out shorter and shorter soundbites, little in depth news, yet give many people the illusion they are well informed.