As I suspected, a great many readers have strong feelings on this:

Yup, the stock market has only now recovered to Clinton-era levels . . . during wartime and after a cataclysmic and unprecedented attack on the US. Oh, and then there was the recession that Bush inherited from Clinton. And before anyone starts harping on the recession that Bush I left for Clinton, it was long over by January of 1993, despite the MSM reports to the contrary throughout the 1992 election cycle. Oh yeah . . . and there was that tech-stock overvaluation that artificially boosted the appearance of a robust market during the Clinton years. Hmmmm–the success of the market isnt’ such a hollow victory when you examine the comparative circumstances during which it has occurred. Now if we can just get the big-government Republicans to STOP SPENDING, all will be well!

And:

Jonah,
I agree that it is silly to attribute the Dow records to Presidents, but if
the liberals want to play that game:
Neither FDR nor Harry Truman managed to surpass Herbert Hoover’s Dow Jones
Industrials record of 386.10 during their 20 years holding the Presidency.
Hoover’s record was not surpassed until November of 1954, a year and a half
into the Eisenhower Presidency.
Both Hoover’s and Clinton’s Dow records can be attributed to the
over-valuation of stocks due to unwise speculation – in the Clinton era’s
case, speculation in unprofitable internet/tech stocks.
If we are to attribute everything in the economy to the President, we can
say that Bush was quicker to recover from the crash he inherited.

And:

Mr Goldberg:
One thing you may want to point to all the Clinton-boosters on this topic:
The Dow hoit its highest on Jan 14, 2000, almost a year before Clinton left
office. On Jan 20, 2001, the Dow had slid to around 8,200 (I am relying
from memory), a drop of about 30% from the highs. So, to the extent that a
president gets credit or blame for stock market performance, the reality is
that the Dow has gained 43% from the day Bush got stewardship of the
economy.
Clinton left a dying stock market, Bush revived it to health.

And:

Mr. Goldberg–
Not to mention that the Dow Jones Industrial Average reached a high of 381.17 on September 3, 1929, when Hoover was President, and did not attain that level again until November 1954, when Eisenhower was President. Does this mean that FDR and Harry Truman were economic incompetents compared to Hoover?

And, finally, this:

Jonah:
A bunch of things came together perfectly in the late 1990s to push the Dow
to record highs. Unfortunately, the things that weren’t part of this were
the old business standard like P/E ratios, which were way out of whack with
historical standards, but instead a “perfect storm” of hype, taxation
changes, and fed actions. (And let’s not even start with NASDAQ, which is
still less than half of its record value in 2000).
What helped the Dow was:
– Clinton cutting capital gains taxes in 1997. A good thing, and I give
him full credit for it – suddenly, money became much cheaper to move from
investment to investment. Couple this with the next item, the internet
bubble, and investing in risky ventures became slightly less risky.
– The internet bubble. This was truly the New New thing, and people were,
from a business perspective, utterly bonkers about anything dotcom. The
fact that there was no practical business reason why drkoop.com could have a
stock valuation of millions of dollars didn’t matter a whit. This was sheer
speculation, with millions of people “investing” in companies that had
nothing resembling a business plan that explained how they would actually
make money. Greenspan’s “Irrational Exhuberance” statement was spot on.
But the Fed also contributed, in a couple of ways.
– The Fed. They lowered interest rates again and again in the late 90s.
This added fuel to the mix.
– Y2K. Remember that? People think that it came and went and nothing
happened. But a lot did, and in ways that few expected. Planes didn’t drop
out of the sky, and nuke plants didn’t melt down. But its effects were
impressive. 1) A ton of money – billions and billions – was spent by
business and government on computers, software, and their associated
infrastructure. Think Cisco. Not all of this was panic-driven; many
businesses truly improved efficiency, sometimes by orders of magnitude. But
once Y2K came and went the need for this suddenly seemed much less important
because the panic factor was gone. Software and computer companies that
were making tons of money suddenly found their customer base was fully
sated. 2) The Fed, yet again. They dumped somewhere around 300 billion in
cash into the economy in the months before 1/1/2000, partly because of the
concern that Y2K might panic people and maybe – just maybe – some credit
card/checking account software systems might hiccup.
Then — what happened to end this? Y2K came and went. The Fed began
raising rates, month after month. The Fed also started removing the cash
they dumped into the economy. The fed didn’t just cool down the fire of the
economy – they actively dumped water on it. And the dotcom bubble, like all
bubbles, collapsed. The excitement was gone. Investors began to think that
a company should actively try and make money. P/E ratios were examined, and
stocks were dumped. (Check the graph for CMGI as an example.)
How much did Clinton have to do with it? Some. For that, I’m glad – he
demonstrated yet again that tax cuts do matter. But the he had little
control over the Fed, little control over dotcom, and none over Y2K. But to
say he did nothing is not correct. He did help – by cutting taxes.
How does this bull market compare to the dotcom market? It’s much more
based on actual performance – profitability, for example.

Update: A particularly vexed reader brings to my attention the fact that the second email from the top is incorrect. The reader, working from memory, says the Dow gained 43 percent. It didn’t. My vexed reader corrects the record: “The Dow closed at 10,686 on Friday, Jan 19, 2001. It is now at 11,775. That’s a gain of a little over 10%- nowhere near the 43% your reader claimed.”