[bagman]

I think that you're missing the point. The perception in the electorate is that the booming economy of the Nineties was due to Clinton. It is immaterial whether this perception is justified. Clinton is widely considered to be due credit for those "good times."

For my part, I always thought that the booming 90s were due to productivity increases arising from the integration of personal computers to the workplace. I also note that the Leading Economic Indicators started declining in January, 2000, just when '43 was inagurated. Oops! That's right - Clinton would still be president for another year. Perhaps that economy wasn't so good.

Again, our ramblings regarding the true state of the economy are not important. Morris is arguing perception, not reality.

[freedomlover]

I think that you're missing the point. The perception in the electorate is that the booming economy of the Nineties was due to Clinton. It is immaterial whether this perception is justified. Clinton is widely considered to be due credit for those "good times."

Isn't it interesting that prosperity in the 80's was GREED, whereas prosperity in the 90's was, well, prosperity.

[My2Cents]

What you say is true. But one of my pet peeves is incorrect perceptions that become historical "facts". Even though Morris has had a falling out with Bill Clinton, his reference to the unassailability of the "Clinton Economy" perpetuates the perception. It irritates me to think of Bill Clinton having a positive legacy of any kind, particularly one built on spin.

[Chemist_Geek]

Morris is arguing perception, not reality.

He may be so arguing, but in politics perception is reality.

[Gumlegs]

Actually, the economic indicators released by the government for '98 and '99 have been ... revised somewhat. The real numbers show the economic decline starting in 1998.