>>Clinton got a way better hand delt to him in 1992 then Bush got in 2000.
In world affairs, possibly. But it wasn't that bad in 2000 either. Fiscally? I'd like to see some proof on that from a federal and personal economic perspectives.
I don't have the numbers off the top of my head, but obviously the first thing that comes to mind is the internet/computer bloom, which didn't fall off until 1997-1999 (and prompted the 2000 "mini-recession")
Clinton did a really good job capitalizing on the good fortune, he deserves a lot of credit, the 90's rocked, but I think any President would much, much rather be stepping into 1992 rather then 2000.