Yes, and I laid out some of those, such as Clinton's more direct socialistic approach of using a New Deal-style Americorps program, versus Obama's market-friendly approach of relying on business partnerships, through corporate grants like ARRA. The Clinton era was also marked by considerably more government spending and employment growth than the Obama era.
Right-wingers just can't relinquish that incorrect talking point, no matter how many times their errors are pointed out. First it wasn't even the weakest recovery of the various recoveries from the Great Recession. It was one of the stronger ones. Much of the world double-dipped into a second recession, while we continued growing, and we reached pre-recession levels long before most other wealthy nations. Second, it's also not the weakest recent recovery among various US recoveries. For example, compare it to the first of the Reagan recoveries -- the one that lasted all of twelve months and got us nowhere even close to pre-recession economic numbers. Was that stronger than the Obama recovery, which left pretty much every positive economic indicator at a new all-time high?
You are mis-remembering history. Reagan's first recovery (the one when the Fed was raising rates to fight inflation) was pathetic -- weak and over almost before it had begun. Reagan's second recovery --assisted by massive cuts in interest rates by the Fed-- was stronger. By comparison, the Obama recovery occurred despite the Fed never cutting rates on his watch, but rather actually raising them.
Thinks the stock market is about the short term. 