Did Obama really save GM?

George Will is one of my favorite conservative writers and pundits. A few weeks ago he framed the takeover of General Motors in a way that might make liberals, I mean progressives, cringe in his piece titled "Liberalism, as we know it".
Here is an excerpt from it:

"After a delusional proclamation — General Motors “has come roaring back” — Obama said: “Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.” We have been warned.
Obama’s supposed rescue of “the auto industry” — note the definite article, “the” — is a pedal on the political organ he pumps energetically in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and elsewhere. Concerning which:

He intervened to succor one of two of the U.S. auto industries. One, located in the South and elsewhere, does not have a long history of subservience to the United Auto Workers and for that reason has not needed Obama’s ministrations. He showered public money on two of three parts of the mostly Northern auto industry, the one long entangled with the UAW. He socialized the losses of GM and Chrysler. Ford was not a mendicant because it was not mismanaged.

Today, “I am GM, hear me roar” is again losing market share, and its stock, of which taxpayers own 26 percent, was trading Thursday morning at $21, below the $33 price our investor in chief paid for it and below the $53 price it would
have to reach to enable taxpayers to recover the entire $49.5 billion bailout."

The GM takeover and their subsequent performance gives me cause to pause when I hear it used as an achievement of the administration. How can a candidate boast about a deal that has lost taxpayers so much money?

---