My, how things change. Just two short months ago, Automotive News [sub] publisher and editorial director Keith Crain was asking us to redefine our very notion of what an automaker is in order to justify Chrysler’s continued existence. “Who knows?” mused Crain. “Before too long, Chrysler might just do some engineering and perhaps a bit of design and let someone else build its vehicles. Chrysler would become a marketer rather than a manufacturer, sort of like Home Depot.” Fast forward through two months of bad news, and suddenly Crain has realized that just maybe it’s more likely that Chrysler will die rather than challenge paradigms. And though his latest missive “Just Put Up A ‘For Sale’ Sign” is doom-and-gloomy enough to get him membership in our rapidly-growing Cassandra club, he makes sure blame goes where it belongs: the fools who were dumb enough to buy the mess the last time it was for sale.

Jump for the rest of the post.

Cerberus gets it right between the eyes, as Crain gives up on Chrysler’s paradgim-shifting potential. “Stephen Feinberg, head of Cerberus Capital Management has been losing an amount of money beyond even his worst imagination. Chrysler has cost him and his clients billions of dollars. They were cocky enough to think that they were going to make billions without batting an eye. They didn’t know how ill-equipped they were to run an automobile company.” This is either the moment for TTAC to defend the good, strong, honest hedge funds of America, or point out that Crain thought a Cerberus-run Chrysler heralded a brave new future for American automakers. So, what to do now that Crain believes the term “too big to fail” probably doesn’t describe the domestic auto business? Sell to the foreigners, is Crain’s weary advice, specifically the Chinese or Renault/Nissan. So what happened to “the U.S. automakers (being) the linchpin of a strong manufacturing industry in this nation”? Or was that only trotted out to justify the bailout? Anyone else feeling some editorial whiplash?