Bush has persued a weak dollar policy and that hasn't really helped either.

Of course it hasn't helped. Our manufacturing base has been decimated after a 25 year assault from Washington and from poor Wall Street management. You can thank the Clintons for some of both - this was a bipartisan, public / private sector screw-up. We import virtually everything manufactured save some food and export almost nothing in return. A quick trip thru a shopping mall checking the "Made In" tags will demonstrate the truth of that. Or just watch all of the empty container ships floating away from the Port of Los Angeles.

All weakening the dollar does now - in the short term, anyhow - is drive up the cost of imported goods, imported food and imported energy. It's like feeding a hungry man after he's already dead from starvation.

It also doesn't help that China's currency is still largely pegged to the dollar, which means our exports aren't much more competitive there than they were a couple of years ago, and their exports still remain comparatively cheap.

It'll take years now for currency devaluation to bring the situation back into some kind of balance - even longer if our banking system continues its deregulation-fueled implosion and can no longer offer our manufacturing sector the capital it needs to expand and take advantage of our devalued currency.

The president doesn't lead the economy. They are not running that show. S/He shouldn't get the credit or blame for everything.

That's a strawman argument. Nowhere did I claim that the Administration runs the economy. But the Clinton Administration is very much responsible for its actions, for those items it failed to act on while in a position of leadership, and for the consequences of those actions or inaction.

If as the shift manager at your local retailer you allow - thru your actions or your inaction - a bunch of crooks to come in and steal multiple items of value, leading to massive losses at your store, you most certainly deserve the blame for the eventual losses. Godlike powers are not required to prevent thieves from making off with half the store, as anyone who's worked retail will tell you. Preventing that is more than within a competent manager's powers.

And so it goes on the national stage. It has diddly to do with being a "command" economy. I've already outlined in some detail steps the Clinton Administration could have taken but did not to help avoid the situation we find ourselves in today. To reiterate - in excruciating detail - once again, here are a few of the actions they could have taken but chose not to which would have helped to mitigate or actually avoid the mess we're in now:

1) They could have abandoned the strong dollar policy, retaliated against foreign attempts to manipulate the value of the dollar and allowed the dollar to fall to its natural value in the marketplace. This would have greatly assisted the American export market, and made imports more expensive, preserving high-paying American jobs and manufacturing skills and know-how.

2) They could have replaced Greenspan with someone remotely competent.

3) They could have opposed so-called free trade legislation which did not include strong environmental and labor protection clauses. Don't adhere to our high standards? Then you don't get to escape tariffs. This is not rocket science.

4) They could have opposed attempts to destroy the regulatory framework which had ensured almost constant economic growth for decades.

5) They could have fought for tighter lending standards and greater transparency and disclosure in the investment space.

I won't even go into issues like energy policy.

Not only did they not act to prevent many of the excesses which have made this economy sick, they actively supported much of what's hollowed out this nation over the past 15 years. Godlike powers over the economy were not required. They only needed to do their job, exercising the powers available to them. They failed. Only a fool would give them the chance to repeat these mistakes, especially at a time like this.

"Reagan was effective at getting his vision implemented."

So what? So was Hitler. Being able to set direction and influence people is a primary competency for an executive, but there are plenty of powerfully influential executives who screw things up royally on a daily basis.

That's nice. But if you can't even manage the former - getting your vision implemented - nothing else really matters. You might as well be replaced by a potted plant.

We experienced the exact same kind of economic "recovery" under the Clintons as we experienced under Bush, in large part because both were reading off the same tired script. We had 8 years of the Clintons already, and they accomplished next to squat for the economy, apart from getting out of Dodge before Greenspan's last asset bubble popped.

Poor idiot Bush hasn't even been that lucky. Couldn't have happened to a nastier chimp.