Here's what I remember Obama running on... and here is Heritage criticizing the plan in an OCTOBER 15 2008 article:
Senator Obama, on the other hand, will extend the Bush tax cuts only for those taxpayers who earn less than $250,000 a year-he has deemed the rest of the people "rich." Senator Obama will also enact new tax increases on these rich individuals as well as a series of targeted tax credits for lower-income individuals. Senator Obama believes that the current tax system is not progressive enough and that higher taxes on the rich should be used to give money to low-income individuals or those who do not work at all, such as retired people, reduce the deficit, and reduce the size of Social Security's shortfall.
http://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-obama-and-mccain-tax-plans-how-do-they-compare
The 2008 Democratic Platform from July 08, says the same... :
"We will not increase taxes on any family earning under $250,000 and we will offer additional tax cuts for middle class families. For families making more than $250,000, we'll ask them to give back a portion of the Bush tax cuts to invest in health care and other key priorities. "
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=78283
Your retraction is noted. And it raises the question I was asking... how did Dems move from opposing the Bush tax cuts, to wanting to preserve most of them even though Bush added 6 trillion more in debt? What happened to the desire to pay down debt to strengthen SS? What happened to Gore's lock box?