Jessica Mondillo’s Blog

Sarah Palin is John McCain’s Vice President

29 August 2008

McCain announced that Alaskan governor Sarah Palin will be his vice president.  This may have come as a shock to many, especially since Palin was not on the short list of people McCain was considering for VP.  The question is was this a good choice?

Yesterday, I heard about a poll that pick former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney as the person on McCain’s “short list” that would have most benefited him.  Romney would have helped McCain gain at least 1 out of every 5 voters (all over the country as well as across party lines) that were not already committed to McCain.  In addition Romney would have helped McCain almost definitely secure Michigan and many of the Midwestern states.  Romney would also be able to help McCain fill in gaps on economic issues, which McCain admits a lack of expertise.  So why not pick Romney?

McCain obviously felt that Palin would be more beneficial and pull in more voters.  After listening to her speech, she does have many accomplishments including fighting government corruption, having an average family life, and crossing party lines.  Despite these accomplishments, Palin was relatively unheard of before today and will not draw many people in on name recognition.

In her speech Palin acknowledged New York Senator Hillary Clinton and the cracks she made in the “glass ceiling.”  She also reminded people that this week is the anniversary of women receiving the right to vote.  Palin then commented that we can “finish breaking the glass ceiling.”  This makes it seem like Palin was not selected for her credentials (or at least not entirely), but instead because she is a woman who may be able to attract female voters from both parties, especially former Hillary supporters.

Obviously no one will know how this affects McCain in the election, but I truly do NOT believe that Palin was selected merely on credentials.  Beyond having an impressive story and her ability to reach across party lines to work against government problems, I feel that by ignoring certain issues in her speech Palin may lack expertise on issues such as the economy.  I guess the next 2 months and the RNC will tell.


Last Year Kerry Made an Unfair Assesment on College Students being Politically Active

25 February 2008

There’s something that has been bothering me for several months. Last semester John Kerry came to BU and basically scolded the student population for not being politically active. The way I had interpreted his words, it was a reprimand for not voting.

Honestly, I though Boston University was relatively politically active, especially compared to other colleges and universities (i.e. state schools). Almost everywhere you go on campus you will either see political signs or hear political discussions.

I also think it is not fair to claim that this group of college students is not politically active. Although some of us may have gone through smaller local elections or even Senate elections, unless the student is either a grad student or a senior, the majority have not had the opportunity to vote in a presidential election.

I personally was politically active, even before I could vote. It is not fair to assess that I am not politically active or not fulfilling my civic duty because I have voted once in my life. I haven’t even been 18 for 6 months. Many of the students I go to school with are in a similar situation as I am; they have NEVER been able to vote before.

I believe that before Kerry, or any ‘older’ adult for the matter, says that college students need to vote and be more politically active they need to think. Yes, there are many reasons college students do not vote—absentee ballots are difficult to fill out or they are not informed and do not feel that they should vote. Yet at the same time, saying that we are not politically active is not a fair assessment. This is our first chance to vote in a major election (or in some cases at all), not our 2nd, 5th or 10th time. If the majority of new voters do not vote in their first presidential election then you can accuse of us of not being politically active or caring enough to vote.

Please visit this post on my other blog to help me earn scholarship money.

The Democrats to Split to Win the Election?

22 February 2008

I was online and found a political site that said they though John McCain would win the Presidential Election because democrats were split between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. That doesn’t make sense because we are still in the primaries, meaning the Democrats are up against themselves not McCain.

Although some Democrats or Independents are only for one of the two candidates, I have heard many people say that they would vote for either Clinton or Obama in the November election. Especially with the majority of Democrats, it is like holding up two of the same kind of cookie and asking which one they want.

Although people may prefer one cookie over the other, in many cases they will still take either one. This is the same with Obama and Clinton. They have very similar policies and ideas so when push comes to shove a voter will chose either one of them.

Just because McCain does not have a highly divided party right now does not mean that he will be able to easily win the election. Clinton or Obama will give McCain a run for his money once November is closer. The Democrats can find many issues to pick at that could be seriously detrimental to McCain’s campaign.

Please click here to visit this post at my other blog and help me earn scholarship money.

Nails in McCain’s Coffin

19 February 2008

Quite simply put: I don’t think John McCain has any chance of winning the presidential election. More and more things keep adding nails into McCain’s coffin.

NAIL #1: McCain has publicly made one of the most detrimental comments to his campaign. He will not pull the troops out of Iraq. As much as people like the idea of being tough on terrorism, they want out of Iraq. Iraq is turning into a Vietnam—impossible to win but the US can’t turn back without people looking down on them.

NAIL #2: President George W. Bush endorsed McCain and called him a true conservative. President Bush has the lowest approval rating of any president (and it is fresh in people’s minds). You don’t want him endorsing you when people hate and do not trust him, especially swing voters.

NAIL #3: Not only were there once rumors of McCain considering switching parties, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry (D) claims that McCain’s people approached him about putting McCain on the ticket as Vice President. This claim can be found at:

NAIL #4: McCain’s stance as a conservative is often questioned, and instead of not bringing it up, Bush decided that people needed reassurance that McCain is a conservative. This brings up the questions for independent voters: Was it necessary to state that McCain was a conservative? And does that mean people doubt that he is?

NAIL #5: To go along with bringing the question up in people’s minds, McCain also worked on a bill with Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy (D) called the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act. Although there were some parts that the majority of Republicans would agree with (i.e. and English test), it would allow the over 10 million illegal immigrants to stay in the United States. Although this is the only bill that sticks out in my mind, I am sure there are more in McCain’s past.

NAIL #6: McCain does not fall into the pro gun category that is a major part of the conservative ideal. Gun Owner’s of America has not rates McCain about a C– in the four years that they have done their ratings. Their site has a complete list of not only their ratings but also bills that McCain has voted for. You can visit their site:

McCain keeps having nails pounded into his coffin that will stop people from voting for him. If these facts become well known, I do NOT think McCain has a chance of winning.

Please click here to visit this post at my other blog to help me get scholarship money.

Super Tuesday Article on the Political Candidates is a Waste of Space

05 February 2008

In honor of Super Tuesday Boston University decided to put in a full page article in the school newspaper, the Daily Free Press, outlining the positions of the top 3 or 4 candidates in each party.

In one sense this is a great help outlining issues and creating informed voters.  But at the same time it only helps people who registered to vote in Boston, Massachusetts.

Since the majority of the students at BU come from other states it is fair to assume that a large portion of the students are registered to vote in other states.  This means that they must have filled out an absentee ballot to vote and thus voted a week or more ago so that they filled out the ballot and had it returned in time to be counted.

It also does not help any “early bird” students who are registered to vote in Boston since the Daily Free Press usually does not come out until 10 or 11 in the morning.

I think the Free Press wasted space by waiting until the last second to run this article.  If the article was published a week ago students would have been able to read the information and consider why they should or should not support a candidate and still have time to vote in the election even if they were using an absentee ballot.

Boston NOW was another paper who ran information about candidates stances today.  Since Boston NOW does not just target college students but includes an audience consisting of Boston residents, it does help promote understanding issues even if it does not allow for much time to decide who is a better candidate.

Newspapers printing information on political candidates, especially college campuses, are wasting time and ink.  As important as it is for voters to be informed, the information needs to be timely.  On a college campus where students need to mail in their absentee ballots a week prior to election day, an article outlining candidates stances needs to be earlier enough that students can read it before casting their ballot, not after.

Ron Paul Votes not Counted in New Hampshire?

28 January 2008

I was just surfing around the Internet and found several blogs which make me question the validity of not just news polls but also of past and future elections.  According to the original results from Sutton Township, NH, zero people voted for Ron Paul when in fact 31 people voted for him.

Now people are being asked to step forward if they voted for Ron Paul.

This makes me doubt the validity of elections.  After all if the town or state is going to just change my vote, why vote?  This personally makes me believe that once again data is be reported that reflects what one person wants, not what the majority wants.  If this is going on in NH, a very important primary location, how do we know it hasn’t gone on else where?

According to’s article Sutton’s head clerk, Jennifer Call, “was forced to admit that the 31 votes Ron Paul received were completely omitted from the final report sheet, claiming ‘human error’ was responsible for the mistake.” 

To me missing 31 votes all for the same candidate is not missing a vote or 2 because ballots were stuck together but instead intentionally trying to mislead others about the results and changing election results for whatever purpose. 

Also according to the article for a recount Ron Paul would have to pay $67,000.  That is not right that he would have to pay to correct someone else’s mistake.  To correct this error is the responsibility of the party at fault, that means both fixing it and paying the extra bills caused by the error.

I also found info on the missing votes at which talks about the voting machines used in NH and that they can easily be hacked into and have data altered.

Before now I have heard nothing about this and the little I have gotten has been from blogs.  Does anyone else know where I can find more information on this or enlighten me about the issue?

Can Clinton and Obama talk about the issues, not talk about racism?

14 January 2008

I’ll be honest I don’t know much about the major headline today because I haven’t seen every report on the issue and I wasn’t there.  But right now the news of the day according to Verizon’s homepage news blurb is “Clinton, Obama Clash Over Race.”

I want to know why  both of them are trying to play the minority card.  I have heard more about Hillary is a women so women will vote for her.  And Barack is an African American so African Americans will vote for him.

This is sad and twisted logic.  People shouldn’t be voting for people because they have a similarity with the candidate.  I thought picking a PRESIDENT was about issues.

I don’t care that Barack Obama isn’t white or that Hillary Clinton is a women.   I care about the candidate’s past voting record.  I care that the candidate is against gun control and for abortion.  I care that they are pro gay rights.  In short I care about the issues.

Why is the media covering race issues, that have nothing to with a person’s policies, instead of important hot button issues?  If the media didn’t focus on minority aspect of the presidential race (using a gossip style coverage) and covered issues, I would feel much more confident that the US’s next president was one people actually believed could accomplish something within their four years as president.

I want to know why people think that because I am a women, I should vote for Hillary.  This is a flawed logic.   If you agree with Hillary Clinton’s political beliefs or Barack Obama’s AND believe that HE or SHE would be the best candidate for the job, please by all means vote for them.  But I don’t want our next president chosen because they are a minority.  I want a president that people feel is capable of doing the job.

Tea Party ’07 Ron Paul Fundraiser

10 December 2007 

Have you heard of Tea Party 07?  It’s a Ron Paul fundraiser which is trying to create Ron Paul’s biggest fund raising day yet.  In memory of the Boston Tea Party which took place on December 16, 1773, supporters have started a fund raising effort in which they are trying to get 100,000 people to each donate $100 in order to raise $10,000,000 in one day.

In addition to that Ron Paul is having a rally starting at the State House and will end with a reenactment.  This is a great cause and Sunday people should donate whatever they can to help Ron Paul create a revolution.

Also, this proves a point I have already proved in one of my earlier posts.  Like the fundraiser on Guy Fawkes day, this fundraiser was designed by an outside support group.  I personally feels that the proves that the fundraiser on Guy Fawkes Day was not an act promoting terrorism but of a symbolic meaning; the overthrowing of an oppressive government.

The link to the fundraiser/event website is:

Ron Paul: $4 million in one day? Who says Americans don’t support him?

07 November 2007

Ron Paul may have low numbers in the polls but somebody is obviously supporting.  According to CNN Political Ticker, he raised over $4 million dollars on Monday.  Yes I said $4,000,000 dollars.  An outside group started the online campaign and received donations from over 35,000 people in 24 hours.

Ron Paul is not doing too poorly this quarter, especially when you consider that he raised $5 million in his entire third quarter. 

The creator of this fund-raising campaign centered it on Guy Fawkes Day, a holiday marking an attempted bombing of the House of Parliament by Fawkes in 1605.  The creator said that the message was not intended to promote violence.  I think the creator was trying to be symbolic saying that Ron Paul would be a major change in the government.

Ron Paul supports a limited government, low taxes free trade policies, the Second Amendment and a United States free of outside organizations that threaten national sovereignty.

Everyone keeps saying they’d be throwing their vote away on Ron Paul even though they do support his ideas.  Just remember if everyone threw their vote away who supported him, there’s a pretty good chance that he would be our next president.

If you want to know more about Ron Paul, his WebSite is: