President Obama plans to make the auto industry rescue a major part of his reelection campaign, according to a new Politico story by Ben Smith and Byron Tau. As readers of this space know, I think he has a strong argument on the merits. The news from General Motors in particular has been extremely positive for the last year. The company is reporting big profits, it is winning design awards, and, most important of all, it is selling lots of cars.

Relative skeptics like the Atlantic’s Megan McArdle have pointed out, among other things, that GM remains too dependent on sales incentives and too dependent on large, gas-guzzling vehicles. They are right. But I think this is more of a glass half empty, half full sort of dispute. GM is a lot less dependent on incentives than it was. One reason for its strong performance of late is the robust sales of more fuel-efficient vehicles like the redesigned Chevrolet Equinox, which reflects the company's new orientation.

To be clear, I agree that GM remains very much a work in progress. So does Chrysler, or what’s left of it. It’s simply too soon to know whether either company will really thrive, just as the skeptics say. But I also think that's mostly a separate question from whether the administration was right to intervene at the time and in the way that it did.

Keep in mind that the auto industry rescue was, first and foremost, a reaction to economic triage. Without government financing and administration, bankruptcy would likely have meant the liquidation, not the restructuring, of both car companies. As they collapsed, they could have taken Ford and most of the parts industry with them, because of the domestic supply chain the companies shared.