"Both John McCain and I favor tax cuts. The difference is that Senator McCain wants to continue the Bush Tax Code which rewards WEALTH whereas I want to REFORM our tax code so that it rewards WORK."

BORED by those endless replays of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright? If so, go directly to YouTube, search for “John Hagee Roman Church Hitler,” and be recharged by a fresh jolt of clerical jive.

What you’ll find is a white televangelist, the Rev. John Hagee, lecturing in front of an enormous diorama. Wielding a pointer, he pokes at the image of a woman with Pamela Anderson-sized breasts, her hand raising a golden chalice. The woman is “the Great Whore,” Mr. Hagee explains, and she is drinking “the blood of the Jewish people.” That’s because the Great Whore represents “the Roman Church,” which, in his view, has thirsted for Jewish blood throughout history, from the Crusades to the Holocaust.

Mr. Hagee is not a fringe kook but the pastor of a Texas megachurch. On Feb. 27, he stood with John McCain and endorsed him over the religious conservatives’ favorite, Mike Huckabee, who was then still in the race.

Are we really to believe that neither Mr. McCain nor his camp knew anything then about Mr. Hagee’s views? This particular YouTube video — far from the only one — was posted on Jan. 1, nearly two months before the Hagee-McCain press conference. Mr. Hagee appears on multiple religious networks, including twice daily on the largest, Trinity Broadcasting, which reaches 75 million homes. Any 12-year-old with a laptop could have vetted this preacher in 30 seconds, tops.

Mr. McCain says he does not endorse any of Mr. Hagee’s calumnies, any more than Barack Obama endorses Mr. Wright’s. But those who try to give Mr. McCain a pass for his embrace of a problematic preacher have a thin case. It boils down to this: Mr. McCain was not a parishioner for 20 years at Mr. Hagee’s church.

That defense implies, incorrectly, that Mr. McCain was a passive recipient of this bigot’s endorsement. In fact, by his own account, Mr. McCain sought out Mr. Hagee, who is perhaps best known for trying to drum up a link:www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=11541|pre-emptive “holy war”] with Iran. (This preacher’s rantings may tell us more about Mr. McCain’s policy views than Mr. Wright’s tell us about Mr. Obama’s.) Even after Mr. Hagee’s Catholic bashing bubbled up in the mainstream media, Mr. McCain still did not reject and denounce him, as Mr. Obama did an unsolicited endorser, Louis Farrakhan, at the urging of Tim Russert and Hillary Clinton. Mr. McCain instead told George Stephanopoulos two Sundays ago that while he condemns any “anti-anything” remarks by Mr. Hagee, he is still “glad to have his endorsement.”

I wonder if Mr. McCain would have given the same answer had Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted him with the graphic video of the pastor in full “Great Whore” glory. But Mr. McCain didn’t have to fear so rude a transgression. Mr. Hagee’s videos have never had the same circulation on television as Mr. Wright’s. A sonorous white preacher spouting venom just doesn’t have the telegenic zing of a theatrical black man.

Perhaps that’s why virtually no one has rebroadcast the highly relevant prototype for Mr. Wright’s fiery claim that 9/11 was America’s chickens “coming home to roost.” That would be the Sept. 13, 2001, televised exchange between Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, who blamed the attacks on America’s abortionists, feminists, gays and A.C.L.U. lawyers. (Mr. Wright blamed the attacks on America’s foreign policy.) Had that video re-emerged in the frenzied cable-news rotation, Mr. McCain might have been asked to explain why he no longer calls these preachers “agents of intolerance” and chose to cozy up to Mr. Falwell by speaking at his Liberty University in 2006.

None of this is to say that two wacky white preachers make a Wright right. It is entirely fair for any voter to weigh Mr. Obama’s long relationship with his pastor in assessing his fitness for office. It is also fair to weigh Mr. Obama’s judgment in handling this personal and political crisis as it has repeatedly boiled over. But whatever that verdict, it is disingenuous to pretend that there isn’t a double standard operating here. If we’re to judge black candidates on their most controversial associates — and how quickly, sternly and completely they disown them — we must judge white politicians by the same yardstick.

Since January, the Clinton's have pummeled Barack Obama with racially tinged comments and questions about his character. Hillary Clinton has questioned why he didn’t walk out on the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.; why he “denounced” but didn’t “reject” Louis Farrakhan; and whether he is too chummy with the former radical Bill Ayers. She chastised his characterization of white working-class voters as being highfalutin and chided him for not agreeing to a street-fight-style debate. Bill Clinton has called Obama’s stance on the war a fairy tale, dismissed an early primary win as mere Jesse Jackson redux and recently claimed that Obama was playing the race card against him. Some of this is valid, the result of Obama’s own missteps, but some of it is baffling.

The rhetoric appears to be trafficking in old fears and historic stereotypes. The unspoken (and confusing) characterization of Obama is that he’s militant yet cowardly; uppity yet too cool for school.

The question is this: Have white Democrats soured on Obama? Apparently not. Although his unfavorable rating from the group is up five percentage points since last summer in polls conducted by The New York Times and CBS News, his favorable rating is up just as much.

On the other hand, black Democrats’ opinion of Hillary Clinton has deteriorated substantially (her favorable rating among them is down 36 percentage points over the same period).

While a favorable opinion doesn’t necessarily translate into a vote, this should still give the Clinton's (and the superdelegates) pause.

Electability cuts both ways.

If Hillary Clinton should defy the odds (and the current math) and secure the nomination, she would be hard-pressed to defeat John McCain without the enthusiastic support of black voters, stalwarts of the Democratic base.

Getting that support could now be tricky.

Kantor: "Look at Indiana - 42-40. It doesn't matter if we win; those people are shit. How would you like to be a worthless white ni***r?"

Still, campaign advisers said the former president is a net plus given his vast popularity with Democratic loyalists. "I start laughing every time I hear it -- 'Is it positive or negative?' " said former commerce secretary Mickey Kantor, Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign chairman and an adviser to Hillary Clinton. "This borders on the ridiculous."

Other than ensuring the Greatest Show on Earth will continue, does it matter that Hillary Clinton defeated Barack Obama Tuesday in Pennsylvania by nine-plus points? Barack Obama is the nominee.

No matter how many kicks the rest of us find in such famously fun primary states as Indiana and South Dakota, it's going to be McCain versus Obama in 2008.

I believe the cement set around the Clinton coffin last Friday. The Obama campaign announced it had received the support of former Sens. Sam Nunn of Georgia and David Boren of Oklahoma. Both are what some of us nostalgically call Serious Democrats. They represent what the party was, but is no more: sensible on national security, spending and middle-class values. Obama receiving their imprimatur is like hands reaching out from the graves of FDR, JFK and LBJ to announce: "Enough is enough. This man is your nominee. Go forth and fight with the Republicans." Make no mistake: Superdelegates with sway took notice.

Sam Nunn and David Boren by political temperament should be in her camp. Instead, they threw in with Obama, who calls his campaign "post-partisan," a ludicrous phrase. The blowback at ABC's debate makes clear that Obama is the left's man. So what did Messrs. Nunn and Boren see? The biggest event was the Clinton Abandonment. In a campaign of surprises, none has been more breathtaking than the falling away of Clinton supporters, loyalists . . . and friends. Why?

Money. Barack Obama's mystical pull on people is nice, but nice in modern politics comes after money. Once Barack proved conclusively that he could raise big-time cash, the Clintons' strongest tie to their machine began to unravel. Today he's got $42 million banked. She's got a few million north of nothing. But it's more than that. Barack Obama's Web-based fund-raising apparatus is, if one may say so, respectable. The Clintons' "donor base" has been something else.

Senator Clinton made her “opposition” to NAFTA a cornerstone of her Ohio campaign. There was only one problem: she wasn’t telling the truth to Ohio voters. Misrepresenting your position and carefully parsing your words when you don’t think you’ll get caught are the hallmarks of the kind of politics that Barack Obama is running to change. That’s the kind of politics that led us into war in Iraq and gave us a tax code that lets those with offshore investments pay a lower tax rate than the average working family in Pennsylvania.

It’s about trust.

Working Americans are looking for a President who will be consistent in standing up for American workers—and have the integrity to be consistent in his or her views. Senator Clinton has failed that test: though she now rails against NAFTA on the campaign trail, her records as first lady show that she actively lobbied for NAFTA’s passage.

Thousands of pages of Hillary Clinton’s White House schedules released yesterday show that she was one of the administration’s top proponents of NAFTA, attending at least four meetings to advocate for its passage.

That was then. Now that she’s running for President, Clinton has changed her tune. Less than a month ago, Clinton said at a debate that “I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning. I didn't have a public position on it, because I was part of the administration, but when I started running for the Senate, I have been a critic.”

Really? Attendees at the 1993 NAFTA briefing where Clinton served as the closing act say that she was “totally pro-NAFTA and what a good thing it would be for the economy.”

American workers are already facing the uncertainly of a changing economy. The last thing they need is another President who changes views when there’s an election coming up.

“A CRITIC OF NAFTA FROM THE VERY BEGINNING”?

Clinton Said “I Have Been A Critic Of NAFTA >From The Very Beginning.” Clinton: “You know, I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning. I didn't have a public position on it, because I was part of the administration, but when I started running for the Senate, I have been a critic.”

Clinton Said That NAFTA Was “Negotiated Under President George H.W. Bush And It Was Passed During My Husband’s Presidency. But I Was Always Uncomfortable About Certain Aspects Of It, And I Have Always Made That Clear.” Clinton on her position: NAFTA was “negotiated under President George H.W. Bush and it was passed during my husband's presidency. But I was always uncomfortable about certain aspects of it, and I have always made that clear.”

Clinton: “I Had Said That For Many Years” That We Should Fix NAFTA. Asked how she would “fix” NAFTA, Clinton responded, “Well, I had said that for many years, that, you know, NAFTA and the way it’s been implemented has hurt a lot of American workers. In fact, I did a study in New York looking at the impact of NAFTA on business people, workers and farmers who couldn’t get their products into Canada despite NAFTA. So, clearly we have to have a broad reform in how we approach trade. NAFTA’s a piece of it, but it’s not the only piece of it. I believe in smart trade. I’ve said that for years.”

Clinton Campaign: “Clinton Has Been Voicing Serious Concerns About Trade Agreements For Years.” In response to criticism of Clinton’s trade stance, Clinton’s spokesperson said “Senator Obama must have been talking about himself because as recently as 2004, he was saying the United States should pursue trade deals like Nafta. The fact is that Senator Clinton has been voicing serious concerns about trade agreements for years.”

THE RECORD: NAFTA MEETINGS IN THE WHITE HOUSE

NOVEMBER 10, 1993: Clinton Served “As The Closing Act During A Briefing On NAFTA, The Trade Agreement She Now Assails.” Clinton served “as the closing act during a briefing on NAFTA, the trade agreement she now assails.” According to her schedule, at 11:30 am - 11:45 am Clinton did a “NAFTA briefing drop-by” with approximately 120 expected to attend and Clinton concluding the program.

Ø ABC: Two Attendees Said “It Wasn’t A Drop-By It Was Organized Around Her Participation” And “Her Remarks Were Totally Pro-NAFTA And What A Good Thing It Would Be For The Economy.” “Two attendees of that closed-door briefing, neither of whom are affiliated with any campaign, describe that event for ABC News. It was a room full of women involved in international trade. David Gergen served as a sort of master of ceremonies as various women members of the Cabinet talked up NAFTA, which had yet to pass Congress. ‘It wasn’t a drop-by it was organized around her participation,’ said one attendee. ‘Her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA and what a good thing it would be for the economy. There was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time. Folks were pleased that she came by. If this is a still a question about what Hillary's position when she was First Lady, she was totally supportive if NAFTA.’ That first attendee recalls that the First Lady's office in the East Wing put together ‘the invitation list, who was invited authorizations and all that stuff.’ And what is this attendee's response to Clinton today distancing herself from NAFTA? ‘For people who worked hard to pass NAFTA and who support the importance of markets opening for the economy in the long term, they're very upset. A number of the women who were there are very upset. You need to have some integrity in your position. The Clintons when Bill Clinton was president took a moderate position on trade for Democrats. For her to repudiate that now seems pretty phony.’ Recalls a second attendee, ‘they were looking for women in international trade who supported NAFTA. Senator Clinton came by at the end. And of course she asked for our support and help in passing NAFTA.’ Women who attended that event, the second attendee says, have been incredulous to see Clinton distance herself from the trade agreement as she campaigns today. ‘They're all saying, ‘What's this all about?’ We all heard it firsthand.’ She says Clinton isn't being honest with voters today.”

AUGUST 9, 1993: Clinton Attended Back-To-Back Meetings On NAFTA. According to Hillary Clinton’s schedule, she attended a NAFTA meeting that was tentative with the President at 5:10 pm and a NAFTA/Health meeting with the President at 6 pm.

OCTOBER 5, 1993: Clinton Attended Meeting On NAFTA. According to Hillary Clinton’s schedule, she attended a NAFTA meeting that from 10:30am-12am.

MEET ME IN OHIO!

Clinton Criticized Obama For Sending Out A NAFTA Mailer And Said “I Have To Express My Deep Disappointment That He Is Continuing To Send False And Discrediting Mailings With Information That Is Not True To Voters Of Ohio. … It Has Been Discredited. It Is Blatantly False And Yet He Continues To Spend Millions Of Dollars Perpetuating Falsehoods” And Added That Newsday Had Corrected The Record About Her Views On The Agreement. Clinton: “We’ve been drawing contrasts in this campaign, and I think that's important for voters so that they know where we stand, what our records are, what it is we will do as president. Today, in the crowd, I was given two mailings that Senator Obama's campaign is sending out, and I have to express my deep disappointment that he is continuing to send false and discredited mailings with information that is not true to the voters of Ohio. He says one thing in speeches and then he turns around and does this, and we have consistently called him on it. It has been discredited. It is blatantly false and yet he continues to spend millions of dollars perpetuating falsehoods. That is not the new politics that the speeches are about. It is not hopeful; it is destructive. … This mailing about NAFTA, saying that I believe NAFTA was a, quote, boon, quotes a newspaper that had corrected the record. We have pointed it out. The newspaper has pointed it out. Time and time again, you hear one thing in speeches and then you see a campaign that has the worst kind of tactics reminiscent of the same sort of Republican attacks on Democrats. Well, I am here to say that it is not only wrong, but it is undermining core Democratic principles. … Enough with the speeches and the big rallies and then using tactics that are right out of Karl Rove's playbook. This is wrong, and every Democrat should be outraged because this is the kind of attack that not only undermines poor Democratic values, but gives aid and comfort to the very special interests and their allies in the Republican Party who are against doing what we want to do for America. So, shame on you, Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public. That’s what I expect from you. Meet me in Ohio. Let’s have a debate about your tactics and your behavior in this campaign.”

NEW EVIDENCE CONTRADICTS PREVIOUS MEDIA REPORTS

Obama’s Attack On Clinton’s NAFTA Position Is, “Most Observers Say, Misleading.” “As the 2008 campaign shifts to economically hard-hit states like Ohio, so too do the topics of political debate. This week, Sen. Barack Obama's campaign has attacked Sen. Hillary Clinton on trade, arguing that she was once a supporter of the North American Free Trade Agreement that contributed to the loss hundreds of thousands of American jobs. ‘A little more than a year ago,’ an Obama mailer reads, "Hillary Clinton thought NAFTA was a 'boon' to the economy.’ The piece goes on to argue that the New York Senator is ‘changing her tune’ now that she's campaigning in the Buckeye State. The attack is, most observers say, misleading. The "boon" line, a paraphrase lifted from a September 2006 Newsday article, has yet to be confirmed as an authentic quote. But, more importantly, the mailer misrepresents what former Clinton administration officials and biographers say was Hillary Clinton's long-held opposition to the legislation.”

Mickey Kantor Said “Hillary Clinton Was One Of The Great Skeptics” Of NAFTA. “’In August in 92, we had to make a decision,’ Mickey Kantor the former U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Clinton adviser, and free trade advocate recalled for the Huffington Post. ‘President Clinton had to make a decision as governor, whether or not he would support NAFTA, and of course he did... Hillary Clinton was one of the great skeptics in the discussion as to whether he should do. So she was always skeptical beginning in 1992 and onward.’”


David Gergen Said Clinton “Was Extremely Unenthusiastic About NAFTA. “I was actually there in the Clinton White House during the NAFTA fight and I must tell you Hillary Clinton was extremely unenthusiastic about NAFTA. And I think that’s putting it mildly. I’m not sure she objected to all the provisions of it but she just didn’t see why her husband and that White House had to go and do that fight. She was very unhappy about it and wanted to move on to health care. So I do think there’s some justification for her camp saying, you know, she’s never been a great backer for NAFTA."

As President, Barack Obama will end the war in Iraq and redirect our resources toward pressing domestic and national security priorities. Ending the war in Iraq will help pay for Obama’s priorities for the country, which include:

·Keeping the sacred trust with our veterans;

·Rebuilding our military capability by increasing the number of soldiers, marines, and special forces troops, and insist on adequate training and time off between deployments;

·Covering all Americans and reducing health care costs by $2,500 for a typical family;

·Putting college within reach by providing a $4,000 refundable tax credit available at the time of enrollment;

·Creating a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to expand and enhance existing federal transportation investments that will provide at least two million new U.S. jobs;

·Providing a middle class tax cut of up to $1,000 for working families;

·Strengthening retirement security and protect Social Security; and

·Investing in a clean energy future to wean the U.S. off of foreign oil and to lead the world against the threat of global climate change

Senator Obama’s remarks follow as prepared for delivery.

Remarks for Senator Barack Obama
The Cost of War
University of Charleston
Charleston, West Virginia
Thursday, March 20, 2008

Five years ago, the war in Iraq began. And on this fifth anniversary, we honor the brave men and women who are serving this nation in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world. We pay tribute to the sacrifices of their families back home. And a grateful nation mourns the loss of our fallen heroes.

I understand that the first serviceman killed in Iraq was a native West Virginian, Marine 1st Lieutenant Shane Childers, who died five years ago tomorrow. And so on this anniversary, my thoughts and prayers go out to Lieutenant Childers’ family, and to all who’ve lost loved ones in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The costs of war are greatest for the troops and those who love them, but we know that war has other costs as well. Yesterday, I addressed some of these other costs in a speech on the strategic consequences of the Iraq war. I spoke about how this war has diverted us from fighting al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and from addressing the other challenges of the 21st Century: violent extremism and nuclear weapons; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease.

And today, I want to talk about another cost of this war – the toll it has taken on our economy. Because at a time when we’re on the brink of recession – when neighborhoods have For Sale signs outside every home, and working families are struggling to keep up with rising costs – ordinary Americans are paying a price for this war.

When you’re spending over $50 to fill up your car because the price of oil is four times what it was before Iraq, you’re paying a price for this war.

When Iraq is costing each household about $100 a month, you’re paying a price for this war.

When a National Guard unit is over in Iraq and can’t help out during a hurricane in Louisiana or with floods here in West Virginia, our communities are paying a price for this war.

And the price our families and communities are paying reflects the price America is paying. The most conservative estimates say that Iraq has now cost more than half a trillion dollars, more than any other war in our history besides World War II. Some say the true cost is even higher and that by the time it’s over, this could be a $3 trillion war.

But what no one disputes is that the cost of this war is far higher than what we were told it would be. We were told this war would cost $50 to $60 billion, and that reconstruction would pay for itself out of Iraqi oil profits. We were told higher estimates were nothing but “baloney.” Like so much else about this war, we were not told the truth.

What no one disputes is that the costs of this war have been compounded by its careless and incompetent execution – from the billions that have vanished in Iraq to the billions more in no-bid contracts for reckless contractors like Halliburton.

What no one disputes is that five years into this war, soldiers up at Fort Drum are having to wait more than a month to get their first mental health screening – even though we know that incidences of PTSD skyrocket between the second, third, and fourth tours of duty. We have a sacred trust to our troops and our veterans, and we have to live up to it.

What no one disputes is that President Bush has done what no other President has ever done, and given tax cuts to the rich in a time of war. John McCain once opposed these tax cuts – he rightly called them unfair and fiscally irresponsible. But now he has done an about face and wants to make them permanent, just like he wants a permanent occupation in Iraq. No matter what the costs, no matter what the consequences, John McCain seems determined to carry out a third Bush-term.

That’s an outcome America can’t afford. Because of the Bush-McCain policies, our debt has ballooned. This is creating problems in our fragile economy. And that kind of debt also places an unfair burden on our children and grandchildren, who will have to repay it.

It also means we’re having to pay for this war with loans from China. Having China as our banker isn’t good for our economy, it isn’t good for our global leadership, and it isn’t good for our national security. History teaches us that for a nation to remain a preeminent military power, it must remain a preeminent economic power. That is why it is so important to manage the costs of war wisely.

This is a lesson that the first President Bush understood. The conduct of the Gulf War cost America less than $20 billion – what we pay in two months in Iraq today. That’s because that war was prosecuted on solid grounds, and in a responsible way, and with the support of allies, who paid most of the costs. None of this has been the case in the way George W. Bush and John McCain have waged the current Iraq war.

Now, at that debate in Texas several weeks ago, Senator Clinton attacked John McCain for supporting the policies that have led to our enormous war costs. But her point would have been more compelling had she not joined Senator McCain in making the tragically ill-considered decision to vote for the Iraq war in the first place.

The truth is, this is all part of the reason I opposed this war from the start. It’s why I said back in 2002 that it could lead to an occupation not just of undetermined length or undetermined consequences, but of undetermined costs. It’s why I’ve said this war should have never been authorized and never been waged.

Now, let me be clear: when I am President, I will spare no expense to ensure that our troops have the equipment and support they need. There is no higher obligation for a Commander-in-Chief. But we also have to understand that the more than $10 billion we’re spending each month in Iraq is money we could be investing here at home. Just think about what battles we could be fighting instead of fighting this misguided war.

Instead of fighting this war, we could be fighting the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and who are plotting against us in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We could be securing our homeland and stopping the world’s most dangerous weapons from falling into terrorist hands.

Instead of fighting this war, we could be fighting for the people of West Virginia. For what folks in this state have been spending on the Iraq war, we could be giving health care to nearly 450,000 of your neighbors, hiring nearly 30,000 new elementary school teachers, and making college more affordable for over 300,000 students.

We could be fighting to put the American dream within reach for every American – by giving tax breaks to working families, offering relief to struggling homeowners, reversing President Bush’s cuts to the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, and protecting Social Security today, tomorrow, and forever. That’s what we could be doing instead of fighting this war.

Instead of fighting this war, we could be fighting to make universal health care a reality in this country. We could be fighting for the young woman who works the night shift after a full day of college and still can’t afford medicine for a sister who’s ill. For what we spend in several months in Iraq, we could be providing them with the quality, affordable health care that every American deserves.

Instead of fighting this war, we could be fighting to give every American a quality education. We could be fighting for the young men and women all across this country who dream big dreams but aren’t getting the kind of education they need to reach for those dreams. For a fraction of what we’re spending each year in Iraq, we could be giving our teachers more pay and more support, rebuilding our crumbling schools, and offering a tax credit to put a college degree within reach for anyone who wants one.

Instead of fighting this war, we could be fighting to rebuild our roads and bridges. I’ve proposed a fund that would do just that and generate nearly two million new jobs – many in the construction industry that’s been hard hit by our housing crisis. And it would cost just six percent of what we spend each year in Iraq.

Instead of fighting this war, we could be freeing ourselves from the tyranny of oil, and saving this planet for our children. We could be investing in renewable sources of energy, and in clean coal technology, and creating up to 5 million new green jobs in the bargain, including new clean coal jobs. And we could be doing it all for the cost of less than a year and a half in Iraq.

These are the investments we could be making, all within the parameters of a more responsible and disciplined budget. This is the future we could be building. And that is why I will bring this war to an end when I’m President of the United States of America.

But we also know that even after this war comes to an end, the costs of this war will not. We’ll have to keep our sacred trust with our veterans and fully fund the VA. We’ll have to look after our wounded warriors – whether they’re suffering from wounds seen or unseen. That must include the signature injuries of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – not just PTSD, but Traumatic Brain Injury. We’ll have to give veterans the health care and disability benefits they deserve, the support they need, and the respect they’ve earned. This is an obligation I have fought to uphold on the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee by joining Jay Rockefeller to expand educational opportunities for our veterans. It’s an obligation I will uphold as President, and it’s an obligation that will endure long after this war is over.

And our obligation to rebuild our military will endure as well. This war has stretched our military to its limits, wearing down troops and equipment as a result of tour after tour after tour of duty. The Army has said it will need $13 billion a year just to replace and repair all the equipment that’s been broken or lost. So in the coming years we won’t just have to restore our military to its peak level of readiness, and we won’t just have to make sure our National Guard is back to being fully prepared to handle a domestic crisis, we’ll also have to ensure that our soldiers are trained and equipped to confront the new threats of the 21 century and that our military can meet any challenge around the world. And that is a responsibility I intend to meet as Commander-in-Chief.

So we know what this war has cost us – in blood and in treasure. But in the words of Robert Kennedy, “past error is no excuse for its own perpetuation.” And yet, John McCain refuses to learn from the failures of the Bush years. Instead of offering an exit strategy for Iraq, he’s offering us a 100-year occupation. Instead of offering an economic plan that works for working Americans, he’s supporting tax cuts for the wealthiest among us who don’t need them and aren’t asking for them. Senator McCain is embracing the failed policies of the past, but America is ready to embrace the future.

When I am your nominee, the American people will have a real choice in November – between change and more of the same, between giving the Bush policies another four years, or bringing them to an end. And that is the choice the American people deserve.

Somewhere in Baghdad today, a soldier is stepping into his Humvee and heading out on a patrol. That soldier knows the cost of war. He’s been bearing it for five years. It’s the cost of being kept awake at night by the whistle of falling mortars. It’s the cost of a heart that aches for a loved one back home, and a family that’s counting the days until the next R&R. It’s the cost of losing a friend, who asked for nothing but to serve his country.

How much longer are we going to ask our troops to bear the cost of this war?

How much longer are we going to ask our families and our communities to bear the cost of this war?

When are we going to stop mortgaging our children’s future for Washington’s mistake?

This election is our chance to reclaim our future – to end the fight in Iraq and take up the fight for good jobs and universal health care. To end the fight in Iraq and take up the fight for a world-class education and retirement security. To end the fight in Iraq and take up the fight for opportunity, and equality, and prosperity here at home.

Those are the battles we need to fight. That is the leadership I want to offer. And that is the future we can build together when I’m President of the United States. Thank you.