You can't have it both ways.

If, as you say, the percentage of people in poverty is a benchmark of how economic policies work, then Clinton's high poverty rate means his policies didn't work.

And, while the poverty rate may have risen under Bush, his highest isn't as bad as Clinton's highest, and is only about the same as Clinton's lowest.

In other words, using your own measuring device, the best Clinton could do is about the same as Bush's worst.