Bill Clinton and Warren Harding. Michael Meckler has another good post up dealing with the Presidency. This one compares the performance of Bill Clinton and Warren Harding as President. There are many similarities.
From the site:
As regular readers of The Columbus Dispatch are aware, I was never particularly enamored with Clinton's presidential performance. The passage of time has only reinforced my view that Clinton achieved little while in office. He deserves some credit for bringing a level of stability to the Balkans after the implosion of Yugoslavia and the inability of the Europeans to effect an end to the bloodshed there. The federal government generated a surplus for the first time in nearly 20 years (Nixon had a surplus in 1969), and multiple surpluses for the first time in 40 years (Eisenhower had surpluses in 1956, 1957 and 1960).
But even with his own party in control of both houses of Congress, Clinton was unable to pass much of his domestic agenda during his first two years in office. NAFTA was the notable exception, and that had been negotiated under Republican presidents and was finally approved by Congress primarily with Republican support. After the GOP won control of both houses in the 1994 election (again, something not seen since the Eisenhower adminstration), Clinton was effective only in regard to aspects of his agenda with strong Republican support, such as welfare reform and the line-item veto. (And the Supreme Court threw out the line-item veto.)