So there are things that happened under Clinton that have been posited as contributing to the financial crash, so the guy who was President for the last 8 years leading up to the crash must be blameless.
Yeah, not buying it. There are lots of things that happened under Bush that are also posited as contributing to the crash. And 8 years is more than long enough for Bush's policies to have contributed.
> so the guy who was President for the last 8 years leading up to the crash must be blameless.
That's not the argument being made. The argument being made is that actions under a president outlast the president and have to be considered as part of their legacy. Bush isn't blameless but that also doesn't mean Clinton gets off Scot-free.
The argument is about how attribution to current events doesn't solely lie upon the current acting head of state.
> ...what led to the 2009 financial crisis was mostly done under the Clinton administration...
That goes well beyond "Clinton doesn't get off Scot-free" all of the way to, "Clinton should get most of the blame."
I'm firmly in agreement that Clinton contributed. But I'm going to need serious convincing that what he did was more important than, say, failing to enforce regulations against fraudulent advertising on subprime mortgages. Or blocking the 2005 GSE reform bill which would have allowed more action before that problem blew out of control.
I was simply answering the question as to what might have been referred to as occurring during the Clinton administration. Not its overall significance in subsequent events.
Yeah, not buying it. There are lots of things that happened under Bush that are also posited as contributing to the crash. And 8 years is more than long enough for Bush's policies to have contributed.