I'm not an economist, so I'm seriously asking this question. Why should we bail out the auto industry?

Bankruptcy would not mean that GM would just disappear. After all, lots of businesses have gone through bankruptcy. They'd simply be re-organized. Shareholders would lose out, but considering the huge drop in share price, most of that damage has already been done. Bond holders would lose big, too, but again, I suspect that most of the damage has already been done.

There would be pay cuts and layoffs, no doubt. And maybe even a change to pension plans (though I've heard that they're relatively well-funded). Clearly, none of these are good things,... but why would propping up a bloated carcass with tax dollars be any better? The American auto industry has been mismanaged for decades, propped up by their tame politicians and our willingness to keep buying gas-guzzling SUV's. Why continue with a failed policy? Have we become some third-world country that considers the auto industry a status symbol? Or is this just a matter of the industry's political power?

As I understand it, there was good reason to bail out the banks. With the toxic mess on their books, letting them fail would have been like tipping a long line of dominoes. Our credit markets would have frozen up, even more than they are today, since no one knew - no one knows even yet - what that stuff is worth. But this doesn't apply to the auto industry, except perhaps to their financing arms (which could be separated in a re-organization).

As I say, this would not mean that GM would simply close its doors. Bankruptcy would just mean a court-supervised restructuring. They'd still be in business, but better equipped to compete going forward. Yes, there would be pain, but how is that different than people losing their jobs all across the country? We can't bail out every single company, can we? So why should the auto industry get special consideration? Why should my tax dollars prop up such a poorly run company, since there IS a limit on what we can realistically do. Aren't there better places to put our money?

Sure, this is a huge company, and there might well be special circumstances. But again, we're just talking about re-organizing under the bankruptcy code. There's no doubt that the company would continue operation during this procedure. Yes, there would be pain, but there IS pain already - everywhere. And our government payments can only go so far. Should the auto industry get special treatment? Is that really the best use we can make of our money?

As I say, I'm not an economist, so I'd be interested to hear of any justification for bailing out the auto industry. I'm thinking that court-supervised restructuring might be just what these companies need. Given their size, I'm sure the government would need to keep a close eye on it. But a bailout? Where's the sense in that?

Mayhill Fowler, whose report sparked the 'bitter small towns' controversy, describes the Barack Obama campaign as 'classy.' She's right. But think about that. If there's one thing the Clinton campaign is not, it's classy.

And that's very odd, because classy would have worked for Hillary Clinton so much better, don't you think? When she was asked if she thought that Obama was a Muslim, she hemmed and hawed around it. Well, she didn't think he was a Muslim, but of course she couldn't really say for sure (wink, wink).

She couldn't bring herself to be classy, to say, "That's completely ridiculous! It's just a perfect example of the kinds of lies we've come to expect from the far right. Barack Obama is no more a Muslim than I am!" But why not? Why didn't she say that? To be completely cynical about it, the rumors wouldn't have gone away, just because she denied them. I'm convinced that this kind of reply would have given her campaign a much bigger boost than her mealy-mouthed equivocating. 'Classy' would have worked for her, but apparently that's just not in her nature.

Likewise, she jumped on the Rev. Wright controversy like a Karl Rove Republican. Hey, the excerpts from Wright's sermons were bad enough for her purposes. They were getting plenty of play - especially on Fox - and the Republicans were howling for blood. So why didn't she go for the high road, speaking out about understanding the black experience and about how a person should not be judged by two or three phrases from a lifetime of sermons and good works. As a purely political move, sticking up for Barack Obama would have helped her own campaign much more than his. As a practical matter, 'classy' would have worked best. But it was not her choice.

We've seen this over and over again. The latest example is this 'bitter' garbage. This time, Clinton is not just following the Republican playbook, but actually appears to be coordinating her comments with John McCain. Note that Obama's comments received plenty of press, right from the start, and the Republicans certainly made a big deal about it. So wouldn't Clinton have looked much better if she'd supported Barack Obama's point, rather than pick out a few words from the speech (bitter, guns, religion) and hammer them like a lying Swift Boat veteran?

Time and time again, we've seen Hillary Clinton taking the low road - the lowest of low roads - when I'm convinced that the high road would have helped her campaign much more. She's widely thought to be cynical, manipulative, scheming, untrustworthy, and untruthful, and these would have been perfect opportunities to demonstrate the opposite. But she just couldn't bring herself to be classy. Maybe it didn't even occur to her as an option, I don't know.

Last year, I would have been happy enough with either candidate, though I worried that Hillary's negatives were frighteningly high. I'd never understood the virulent hatred for Hillary Clinton. It seemed to be just pathological. I always stood up for her, throughout the Clinton presidency and afterwards.

But I guess she's shown me that I was wrong. So far this year, whenever she's had the chance to do something right AND to help her own campaign, she chose the politics of fear and divisiveness even when classy would have worked better! She may no longer be a Goldwater Girl, but her instincts are still with the Republicans, it seems. She and Karl Rove have formed a mutual admiration society - they're technically on opposite sides, but they both play the game in the same way. And she's even schmoozing up to the 'vast right-wing conspiracy.'

Why couldn't the Clintons - either of them, this year - go with classy? It's got to be a personality flaw,... or perhaps just too much time spent in the poisonous atmosphere of Washington. (Bill Clinton, in particular, just seems furious all the time. Hey, I've been furious for seven years! Where's he been?) As I say, I'm convinced this would have actually helped her campaign - really helped it, too. Tell me I'm wrong.

As it is, I guess I understand the Hillary-haters much better. Maybe they were more perceptive than I. Maybe they saw something I'd been missing all those years... Nah! They're just lunatics who got it right for once. But Hillary Clinton has convinced me that she's not suited for the presidency, not at all. She's demonstrated her true nature this year, and it isn't pretty.