On Eve Of Primary, Hillary Drops Negative Mailer Hitting Obama On Taxes

Comments (58)

whowouldjesusbomb? wrote on January 7, 2008 6:50 PM:

Jesus f-ing Christ, are you serious??

HILLARY IS A REPUBLICAN!!! Attacking him on guns and now taxes? Not to mention being deceptive about the entire thing. I'm sick of it.

Talk about the fury of a wounded animal..

Jeremy wrote on January 7, 2008 6:52 PM:

Mark Penn is really doing a heckuvajob channeling Karl Rove.

NamelessFaceless wrote on January 7, 2008 6:53 PM:

So, losing with dignity is out.

mcc wrote on January 7, 2008 6:54 PM:

Just... wow.

Something I was wondering about, did Clinton ever actually attack Obama on gun control? There were rumors she was going to, and that Time article repeated the rumors, but did her campaign at any point say anything? I would be curious if anyone knows details.

bridoc wrote on January 7, 2008 6:55 PM:

WWJB, don't forget this gem:

DOVER, N.H. – Facing the prospect of defeat in tomorrow’s primary, Hillary Clinton just made her strongest suggestion yet that the next president may face a terrorist attack – and that she would be the best person to handle it.

She pointed out that the day after Gordon Brown took office as the British prime minister, there was a failed attempt at a double bombing in London and Glasgow.

“I don’t think it was by accident that Al Qaeda decided to test the new prime minister,” she said. “They watch our elections as closely as we do, maybe more closely than some of our fellows citizens do…. Let’s not forget you’re hiring a president not just to do what a candidate says during the election, you want a president to be there when the chips are down.”

Rudy much? Attacking on guns, check. Attacking on taxes, check. Fearmongering and invoking terror, check. Crapping on MLK Jr's achievements, check. Hey, now Hillary just has to say something about Obama being too friendly toward the gays and she can just switch tickets.

lestatdelc wrote on January 7, 2008 7:03 PM:

Wow her internal numbers must be beyond shit, not just in NH.

MarkL wrote on January 7, 2008 7:08 PM:

Actually, raising the cap.. or even worse, eliminating it.. plays into the hands of Republicans. The more progressive the taxation for SS, the weaker it's base of political support, because the closer it comes to welfare.

hello_world wrote on January 7, 2008 7:10 PM:

At this point, I have no idea what Hillary is doing, unless she's trying to shake Obama's independent support. Very strange attack to make for a Democratic primary.

Maybe she's looking to make a switch a la Lieberman after the primaries are over or something.

Daniel Nexon wrote on January 7, 2008 7:10 PM:

"HILLARY IS A REPUBLICAN!!! Attacking him on guns and now taxes?"

There's a longstanding and *very* liberal argument that means-testing Social Security transforms it into a welfare program and therefore puts the whole program at risk. There's nothing particularly Republican about this attack; if anything, Obama's rhetoric on the supposed "crisis" in the system reflects RNC talking points.

But they'd still both make good Presidents; Clinton's attacks are minor compared to what Obama's likely to see if he wins the nomination....

Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 7:17 PM:

There's a longstanding and *very* liberal argument that means-testing Social Security transforms it into a welfare program and therefore puts the whole program at risk. There's nothing particularly Republican about this attack; if anything, Obama's rhetoric on the supposed "crisis" in the system reflects RNC talking points.

Yes, but (a) Obama's plan is not a means test, the program remains universalist; and (b) there is no long-standing liberal argument that making the tax code less regressive is wrong because it constitutes a tax hike.

So she's not making the argument you suggest, and even she did, it would be inapt.

mooster wrote on January 7, 2008 7:21 PM:

Well of course Hillary is a Republican. It's not like they have a candidate of their own to support.

terry hallinan wrote on January 7, 2008 7:25 PM:

The more progressive the taxation for SS, the weaker it's base of political support

Just great.

If you don't stick it to workers and let the rich off easy, if they have to pay anything at all, you will surely lose votes from - uh, umm, ahh - the middle class?

Best, Terry

NCSteve wrote on January 7, 2008 7:30 PM:

Hey, Hillary!

I hear there are about 500 dead multigazallionaires who might have to pay taxes on their estate. Ya gonna help us end that outrage once and for all too?

elwood wrote on January 7, 2008 7:31 PM:

Obama DID propose eliminating the cap entirely.

See [http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/09/21/opinion/opinion/doc46f35dac127eb409456532.txt here:]

One possible option, for example, is to raise the cap on the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax. If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,500, we could virtually eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall.

Andrew wrote on January 7, 2008 7:31 PM:

I got this in the mail when I came home tonight (in Loudon, NH) and was appalled! I had already decided for Obama, but this was crazy. F**ing crazy. Raising the cap is one of the key things to be done for Social Security. And to say it is a middle class tax raise. No, not really Hillary!

Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 7, 2008 7:37 PM:

The assessment here is correct . . . Obama is playing the Republican's game on Social Security.

Unfortunately for the messeger, the messenger is worse . . .

blah wrote on January 7, 2008 7:38 PM:

Is it my imagination, or did the audience at Saturday's debate laugh out loud at the moderator when he suggested that this would affect the middle class?

And am I further imagining that Clinton joined them in laughing at him, in fact adding her own barb about it against him?

Liam wrote on January 7, 2008 7:40 PM:

Hillary was a Goldwater girl, and actually supported him being elected president while Goldwater was campaigning against the Civil Rights bill that end racial segregation. She is still a Republican at heart.

She is also playing the divisive Gender Card, appealing for support because of her gender. That means that she telling men that she does not value their support.

On the ABC Saturday debate, she made it clear that she wanted to be treated special because of her gender. She pretty much said: Vote for me because of the way I pee.

Notice that John Edwards stressed, during the ABC debate, that it is very personal to him, so today along comes Hillary Chameleon with the same claim. That was the entire focus of her teary performance today. She is always stealing the other candidates campaign words. She and Mitt Romney are very much alike. They both will do and say anything to get where they want to go, and they will both lie about, and distort their opponents words and records.

DTM wrote on January 7, 2008 7:42 PM:

Unfortunately for Clinton, this argument relied on people not knowing the facts about who is currently benefiting from the cap on the payroll tax. And after she tried this before, the facts got out.

susan connolly wrote on January 7, 2008 7:50 PM:

ok so first she cries and then she puts out her nasty, last minute mailer about taxes in New Hampshire, the state that hates all taxes -- which is the real Hillary -- any bets?

c wrote on January 7, 2008 7:51 PM:

That's not what the words you quote say, Elwood. "Raise" does not mean "eliminate" in English, and the second sentence (If we kept the...) is a statement of fact, there to give you a sense of the magnitudes. Overall the op-ed is sorting out the options. It's pretty clear that it favors higher taxes OVER cutting benefits or raising the retirement age, but it's not a call to eliminate the cap.

c wrote on January 7, 2008 7:57 PM:

FWIW there's a legitimate argument that Obama has overplayed the Social Security issue -- among the challenges facing the Republic it's not in the top ten. But it looms large in voters' minds and a Presidential candidate will be expected to have an answer about how future payments support benefits.

0fficial A wrote on January 7, 2008 7:58 PM:

I have a better idea. Let's raise the SS tax cap on investment earnings. It's currently ZERO. The whole argument misses the point.We're debating about how much to tax workers' earned income while Warren Buffett and Paris Hilton pay not a cent of SS tax on their dividends and trust distributions.

A person earning $100,000 by working pays the federal government at least 30% of that income, while a trust fund baby can sit by the pool drawing dividends and pay a maximum of 15%.

Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 8:03 PM:

Liam wrote on January 7, 2008 7:40 PM: "[Hillary and Mitt] both will do and say anything to get where they want to go, and they will both lie about, and distort their opponents words and records"

and, of course, their own.
It's outright insulting how stupid they obviously think we must be.
Then again, was it Mencken who said something like, "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public?"
And PT Barnum who said, "there's a sucker born every minute?"
Nonetheless, being a good little do-be, I will of course vote for whoever "our" candidate turns out to be. I just really wish I didn't have to put the scare quotes around "our." Not this year.

smartalek wrote on January 7, 2008 8:08 PM:

Liam wrote on January 7, 2008 7:40 PM: "[Hillary and Mitt] both will do and say anything to get where they want to go, and they will both lie about, and distort their opponents words and records."

Yes -- and their own, as well.
It is truly insulting how stupid they obviously think we all are.
Wasn't it Mencken who said something like, "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public?" And PT Barnum who said, "there's a sucker born every minute?"
That said, I will of course, being a good little do-be, vote for "our" candidate in the general, whoever it might be. I just really wish I didn't have to put those quote marks around "our" -- not this year.

DTM wrote on January 7, 2008 8:13 PM:

Of course, if you never work, you can't collect Social Security.

hello_world wrote on January 7, 2008 8:21 PM:

FWIW there's a legitimate argument that Obama has overplayed the Social Security issue

No, he hasn't. It's the perfect wedge issue to test the GOP minority. They've already said that SS is in crisis, right? Obama's using their own language against them.

When he gets in office, he works with his Democratic majority and applies good, solid, progressive solutions to SS. Make the Republicans have to stand up, and fight for their privatization plans that were roundly rejected in the Bush era. Are they going to now go back, and vote to not fix a system that's in "crisis"?

Regardless of what some people may want to believe, SS needs fixing. Obama has a plan to fix it, and uses principles Democrats (and eventually Republicans) can get behind.

That's not overplaying your hand. That's preparing for an issue and framing it to your advantage well in advance. In short, that's smart, cagey politics.

Hillary Paul wrote on January 7, 2008 8:31 PM:

Senators need to take a quick course in economic demographics. Individuals who make $102k a year from earned income are somewhat south of 10% of the total population. Hillary is out of her mind both electorally and from a common sense point of view. Those folks are NOT MIDDLE CLASS, no matter how they feel about their own economic condition. AND appealing to the electorate to let them off the hook requires the sort of political tin ear we know Libertarians like Hillary have.

Patchwork wrote on January 7, 2008 8:47 PM:

Hillary is really jumping the shark. This is a great transformation from the first manufactured image of Hillary saying "let's chat" to the people of Iowa and New Hampshire. They don't "do lunch" as she invited some one of her donators who was chosen from a hat to have a lunch with her because they donated to her campaign--never did see who the lucky winner was. In those states of Iowa, where it is freezing cold and in NH where it is freeIng cold, they do not respond much to "let's chat and "let's do lunch" These memes promoted by Hillary are obviously a repeat of what George Bush has done over the past seven years.

Hey, it's a turkey I offer to all my loyal troops, except it is a fake turkey he brings to the table.

Seems to me now, she is saying let's attack. Anything to win and I will lie to do so.

A supposedly strong woman attacks and lies in the process. uh huh. But in the interim, sheds tears and chokes up over her hard work and her weakness in keeping up with the awful stress a campaign has on a woman. She plays the fainting couch and gets the vapors.
Err. John Edwards has had to cope with a lot more stress than this self proclaimed co=president in his life right now. He had not broken down and cried in public just to get sympathy. It is not sympathy he seeks, like Hillary.

Elizabeth is a strong woman and so is John. Hillary the confused, has tried every thing over the past few days and looks like a screaming banshee at this point.

Dry your tears, dear Hillary. We are not impressed with your display of the poor weak female. And you may want to take the time to contemplate the results of your war vote and how hundreds of thousands of women, mothers and families have shed real tears in real grief over the loss of their children and babies.

You shed tears over the loss of your campaign, but they wail over the loss of their children, as well as the families and children of American troops who were killed in the war in Iraq.

You dear weeping woman , distressed over the loss of your campaign, voted to allow those deaths of innocent people. Every single one of them innocent and killed on lies. You voted to let it happen and do not regret that vote.

debatepro wrote on January 7, 2008 8:51 PM:

Maybe I am confused... I thought we were most people left of center were for removing the cap?

Volum wrote on January 7, 2008 8:58 PM:

Jesus.

Obama is the one who's using the GOP talking-point of a "Social Security Crisis" and has been suggesting a lot of policies that I would have thought most progressives would instantly scoff at.

I'd bet if Obama said today "Let's go to war in Hawaii" there'd be thousands of "progressives" ready to cheer him on.

Christ on a toothpick this is getting batshit insane

Mark P wrote on January 7, 2008 9:06 PM:

The mailer says "we need a president that will help hard-working families" ....

Shouldn't it a president WHO.

I'm a bit surprised that they would choose to make Hillary a THAT instead of a WHO.

johnsturgeon wrote on January 7, 2008 9:07 PM:

Liam @ 7:40 PM:
Notice that John Edwards stressed, during the ABC debate, that it is very personal to him, so today along comes Hillary Chameleon with the same claim.

Edwards was first out of the gate with universal health care. Months later, suddenly that's Hillary's policy proposal.

Supposedly frontrunning candidates get away with this all the time. Are we just noticing when it comes from a chick?

I don't think so. It's long past time to end that game, and it doesn't matter who pays the price.

Volum wrote on January 7, 2008 9:07 PM:

"There just one problem: Obama has only proposed raising the cap, not scrapping it."

Incorrect. Actually, more than incorrect, the quote on the mailer was correct and nowhere did it use the term "scrapping it" or anything of the sort.

The original quote (and not the one that Mr.Sargent linked to, which happened a month later) is a verbatim quote.

http://www.issues2000.org/Archive/2007_Dem_primary_Dartmouth_Social_Security.htm

Very simple to find.

DTM wrote on January 7, 2008 9:15 PM:

Volum,

Which policies do you have in mind?

I ask because adjusting the payroll tax cap is actually a popular policy with progressives.

Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 9:18 PM:

After living through the Bush presidency. talking about raising taxes actually looks like a plus to me.

lestatdelc wrote on January 7, 2008 9:25 PM:

Wrong.

The original quote (and not the one that Mr.Sargent linked to, which happened a month later) is a verbatim quote.

Your Issue2000 website link is not accurate to what Obama actually said in the Dartmouth Sept. 26 debate:

OBAMA: I think that lifting the cap is probably going to be the best option. (emphasis mine)

OBAMA: Now, we’ve got to have a process that’s already been talked about. Joe participated back in 1983. We need another one. And I think—I’ve said before, everything should be on the table.

My personal view is that lifting the cap is much preferable than the other options that are available. But what’s critical is to recognize that there is a potential problem.

As I travel around Iowa and New Hampshire I meet young people who don’t think Social Security is going to be there for them. They don’t believe it’s going to be there for them.

And I think it’s important for us, in addition to getting our fiscal house in order, to acknowledge as Democrats that there may be a problem that we’ve got to take on.

And we should be willing to do anything that will strengthen the system to make sure that we are being true to the sake of trust of those who are already retired as well as young people in the future.

And we should reject things that will weaken the system, including privatization, which essentially is going to put people’s retirement at the whim of the stock market.

And what MrSargent linked to was an article by Senator Obama himself:

"...but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,500..." (emphaisis mine)

This does indeed come after the Portsmith debate, and both apply the same rate on all income (i.e. eliminating the cap).

Nice try though.

lestatdelc wrote on January 7, 2008 9:29 PM:

Damn, I really wish Election Central had a preview function when posting.

Volum wrote on January 7, 2008 9:07 PM:

...

The original quote (and not the one that Mr.Sargent linked to, which happened a month later) is a verbatim quote.

Wrong.

Your Issue2000 website link is not accurate to what Obama actually said in the Dartmouth Sept. 26 debate:

OBAMA: I think that lifting the cap is probably going to be the best option. (emphasis mine)

OBAMA: Now, we’ve got to have a process that’s already been talked about. Joe participated back in 1983. We need another one. And I think—I’ve said before, everything should be on the table.

My personal view is that lifting the cap is much preferable than the other options that are available. But what’s critical is to recognize that there is a potential problem.

As I travel around Iowa and New Hampshire I meet young people who don’t think Social Security is going to be there for them. They don’t believe it’s going to be there for them.

And I think it’s important for us, in addition to getting our fiscal house in order, to acknowledge as Democrats that there may be a problem that we’ve got to take on.

And we should be willing to do anything that will strengthen the system to make sure that we are being true to the sake of trust of those who are already retired as well as young people in the future.

And we should reject things that will weaken the system, including privatization, which essentially is going to put people’s retirement at the whim of the stock market.

And what MrSargent linked to was an article by Senator Obama himself:

"...but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,500..." (emphaisis mine)

That does indeed come after the Dartmoth debate, and both apply the same rate on all income (i.e. eliminating the cap).

Nice try though.

Hilliar wrote on January 7, 2008 9:43 PM:

debatepro, you are not confused. Lately on this board there has been the meme that saying anything about Social Security is falling for GOP talking points. There can be no serious talk of the overall regressive effect of the combined income tax/FICA package, because there are too many people here who are in the $100 to $200 k income bracket. They are benefiting from the regressivity. Of course, they wouldn't see it that way any more than Clinton sees the $150 k income as upper class.

The fact is, even if Social Security was as healthy as a horse (it isn't) we should demand that the cap be totally removed on the tax side, but not on the benefit side. It should also be applied to unearned income as well as earned income. This is the ONLY way to eliminate the gross inequity in our tax system.

Volum wrote on January 7, 2008 9:48 PM:

Sorry, it wasn't a nice try. It was a factual comment.

The quote on the mailer was verbatim, and dated accurately.

Sept. 26, 2007

"I think that lifting the cap is probably going to be the best option."

Where did the mailer say "scrapping"?

Even the link you posted, is exactly the same thing:
"OBAMA: I think that lifting the cap is probably going to be the best option."

LIFTING, not "scrapping"

Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 9:48 PM:

Can you say P-A-N-I-C?

Volum wrote on January 7, 2008 9:56 PM:

@ DTM:
"Volum,

Which policies do you have in mind?"

My first two:

• Same-Sex Marriage
• Medical Marijuana Legislation

(I won't even get into his "role of faith" bullshit.)

Annette wrote on January 7, 2008 10:00 PM:

I think the answer to all of this is: Kucinich!

kozmik wrote on January 7, 2008 10:16 PM:

NamelessFaceless wrote on January 7, 2008 6:53 PM:

"So, losing with dignity is out."

Lol. No kidding. That cuts to the bone.

Derek wrote on January 7, 2008 10:16 PM:

Obama is the one who's using the GOP talking-point of a "Social Security Crisis" and has been suggesting a lot of policies that I would have thought most progressives would instantly scoff at.

My first two:

• Same-Sex Marriage
• Medical Marijuana Legislation

Ahahaha! Yah you're some progressive all right!

Them homo's are takin over!!

Right?

Thanks for the chuckle ya bigot.

Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 10:20 PM:

elwood -

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. As he specifically talked of raising, not eliminating, the cap. Which is actually a pretty popular policy, except with Republicans.

Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 10:26 PM:

Careful Annette, they might listen and there'd be a sheep stampede your way!

DTM wrote on January 7, 2008 10:32 PM:

Volum,

Obama supports full legal rights for civil unions and allowing states to determine whether to create gay marriages.

On medical marijuana, he believes if doctors and the best science support its use as a palliative, it should be prescribable.

I can't speak for all progressives, but I am not sure those are positions they would "instantly scoff at".

shoes4industry wrote on January 7, 2008 11:14 PM:

She Gambled And Lost.

Hillary could have most likely won in 2004.
But she calculated that it would be easier and more of a "cake walk" to wait 4 years, NOT run against a sitting president (or a sitting VICE president for that matter!)

Well it doesn't look like it's going to pan out for her unless Obama craps out, which doesn't seem to be in the cards.

The last four years of the Bush debacle should actually be hung around Hillary's neck. She had the chance to stop this madness and instead chose to take the "sure thing" and the easy way out (or "in" as it were).

She really should be ashamed and contrite.

She should pack up and go home.

Jim Martin wrote on January 8, 2008 1:17 AM:

On Eve Of Primary, Hillary Drops Negative Mailer Hitting Obama On Taxes

Classy, Hillary (and Mark). Real classy.

lestatdelc wrote on January 8, 2008 1:17 AM:

Volum, since you are not getting it, lifting the cap and applying the same rate on all income is eliminating the cap (i.e. scraping it).

Sorry if that confuses you, but it is pretty damn simple.

nogo war wrote on January 8, 2008 2:01 AM:

The only candidate left talking about class warfare is John Edwards.

jamie wrote on January 8, 2008 2:22 AM:

Why is it that Barack Obama is "empty talk" until it comes to attacking him, in which case he has a point-by-point plan to tax working families "trillions."

I'm still voting for Edwards, but I'm in California, so we'll see what good that does.

DTM wrote on January 8, 2008 3:52 AM:

jamie,

For what it is worth, it seems to me that California is shaping up to be rather crucial.

Paul wrote on January 8, 2008 4:03 AM:

As Carl Bernstein said on the Clinton News Network tonight - what is remarkable is that the Clinton campaign is waging similar tactics to which they have often been the recipient. For shame. I don't know about the accuracy of this one - but the timing sure stinks - put it out when there's no chance to rebut it. And the pro-choice mailer was dishonesty pure and simple. And her campaign had the chutzpah to complain about the phone calls that were made to refute it.

Yes, I would support Hillary if she won the nomination, but I'd be holding my nose, just as I did in voting for Bill in '96 after he handed Congress back to the Republicans. Enough of the centrist, poll-drive, triangulating, incremental appoach to governing! Some would call it prose - I call in standing in place.

Hillary is like Karl Rove - all she wants is 50+1. That's not a prescription for change, but for endless fighting and lack of significant progress. I want change.

heretic wrote on January 8, 2008 4:50 AM:

Hey, we really don't have to worry about any plans by anyone that would raise taxes. There will still be enough repubs and DLC type Dems in the senate to prevent such a bill from passing. The best we can hope for is the current tax cuts expire. We don't need congressional approval for that. Whihc brings up another point. Unless Obama's coattails are so big that the senate ends up with 60 Dems (not counting Lieberman), a lot of the Dem ideas are pretty much dead in the water (whoever the nominee is).

So get ready for a frustrating time. We will stop torture, end the war, restore the constitution, fight global warming, legalize stem cell research, and maybe even restore federal funding for abortion. But we are not going to get any Democratic style reforms in either healthcare or entitlements. The repubs will block those at every turn. Ironically, McCain would probably have a better shot at healthcare reform because he wouldn't get the kneejerk reaction a Dem president would get for anything that smacked of universal care.

And be prepared for something even more ominous. Once the nutjobs are completely out of power, they are going to devote all their money to getting cases to the supreme court, where they have enough votes to wreak major havoc for years to come. So, all you folks who hated the Clintons, don't be surprised when Obama ends up doing nothing more progressive than Bill did. He is already positioned as a compromiser and he just won't have the votes to do anything the repubs don't want him to do. (In fact, I am truly concerned that Obama is not really progressive at all and will turn out to more conservative than Bill was—his religiosity scares the living crap out of me.)

The best we can hope for is that in 2012, Americans will be so fed up, they will finally send the ultra-right repubs back to whatever hell spawned them. However, by then, it very well might be too late to fix the decline of America. Not at all saying that Hillary or Edwards would have a better shot. They would not. Just don't get your hopes up for Obama. Its gonna be politics as usual.

DTM wrote on January 8, 2008 8:27 AM:

heretic,

Actually, the key date given your scenario would be 2010. That is when the Senators elected in 2004 would be up for reelection, and the American people would have an opportunity to speak on whether or not the obstructionism you describe should be rewarded or punished.

And the one good reason to hope you are wrong is that if the 2008 results are convincing enough, then the Republican party may adopt a different strategy in an effort to stave off a completion of the cycle which actually began in 2006.

Jules wrote on January 9, 2008 4:54 AM:

Have we gotten to the point where progressives cannot support someone because they have religious beliefs? Do not most religions tell us to feed the poor, shelter the homeless, heal the sick, etc? Is this not a very progressive agenda?

It seems those of you opposed to a president with religious beliefs have bought into the radical right's argument that to be religious means you have to be pro-life for people not yet born and anti-life thereafter (i.e. pro-capital punishment, let the poor, homeless and sick take care of themselves, etc).

I don't think it is essential that a president have religious beliefs (although in 2008 US, it might be essential for a presidential candidate to have them), but I don't discount a truly progressive candidate because he is also a religious man.

I consider myself religious and I am pro-choice, for universal health care, more support for public education and none for private, a progressive tax strategy (yes, even for Social Security taxes) on all income (not just earned income), etc.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)