State News

Obama to Speak in Raleigh; Traffic May Be Tough Around Fairgrounds

Posted April 16, 2008
Updated April 17, 2008

— Barack Obama will speak to a full house Thursday at the State Fairgrounds in Raleigh, and the speech was expected to combine with a business exposition there to create traffic challenges.

The Greater Raleigh Chamber of Commerce urged drivers not destined for the town meeting to avoid the area near the N.C. State Fairgrounds.

More than 2,000 people are expected for Obama. Another 5,000 are attending a business event on the grounds.

Tickets for the Obama event at the Kerr Scott Building were snapped up in short order Wednesday.

Obama is scheduled to speak in both Raleigh and Greenville Thursday.

The Raleigh speech will be carried live on WRAL.com. It is scheduled for 1:30 p.m.

Obama also gained two key North Carolina supporters Wednesday when U.S. Reps. David Price and Mel Watt endorsed him for the Democratic nomination for president Wednesday afternoon. U.S. Rep. G.K. Butterfield, former Democratic party leaders Everett Ward and Dannie Montgomery and lobbyist Joyce Brayboy have previously declared their support for Obama.

His competitor, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, has been endorsed by just one superdelegate from the Tar Heel state. Fourteen remain uncommitted.

After his meeting in Raleigh, Obama heads to Greenville for a public event at East Carolina University’s Williams Arena at Minges Coliseum. Doors there open at 4 p.m. and no tickets are required. Admission is based on a first-come, first-serve basis.

133 Comments

This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • Harrison Bergeron Apr 18, 2008

    Hockeyrules,

    That is NOT my assumption, it is fact based on statistical data that I assumed was self-evident (I can provide it if needed - visit my profile) about the same population group to which pic was referring. You seem to fail to grasp I was making a logical substitution. I suppose I could have worded it to explain each step of the substitution, but again, I thought it was clear:

    pop group A is subject of initial comment by pic
    pop group A = more likely to use social services (FACT based on data not referenced)
    pop group A = more likely to spend money on visible goods. (premise of aforementioned study)
    pop group A = pop group A

    clear enough for you?

  • HockeyRules Apr 17, 2008

    Harrison, just to remind you what you actually said, here is the quote..

    "To support pics empirical conclusions, The Consumer Expenditure Survey shows unequivocally that those more likely to use social services are also more likely to spend more of their income on "visible goods", up to 30% more."

    You state the the survey showed that those more likely to use social services...that is not what the survey said at all or even addressed. You are making an assumption that is not at all presented in the report based on stereotypes, much as Jeremaniac and Pics did.

    Very much reflects a weak arguement.

  • HockeyRules Apr 17, 2008

    "I based it on existing statistical data regarding the use of social services vs. the conclusions of this study. Those statistics are readily available, I did not believe I had to post them."

    No, Harrison...your comment was that the report supported his claims. That is not accurate. The report, when supplemented by your opinions, supported his claims. That is really how it works. Can't claim that a report supports a position when the report does not even mention that position. If youwant to write a peer reviewed abstract incorporating your opinion, go for it. Absent that, you had really proven nothing.

  • Harrison Bergeron Apr 17, 2008

    HockeyRules, I am aware that abstract did not make that connection; I did. I based it on existing statistical data regarding the use of social services vs. the conclusions of this study. Those statistics are readily available, I did not believe I had to post them.

    And it certainly does support pics original point.

    "Moderators" quietly deleted my last attempt at a reply, I am unsure why.

  • ncsuspam Apr 17, 2008

    I can see it now, Barack Obama, the very LAST president of the United States.

  • HockeyRules Apr 17, 2008

    "So why would it be fair to raise taxes on people making 102,000? I'm sure they worked just as hard or harder for their money as those making under that amount."

    Still not understanding...those making over 102,000 do not pay social security taxes on the amount made over 102,000. someone making 90,000 pays social security taxes on their entire amount. someone making 200k will only pay on 102,000, the remainder will be untaxed.

    Is that fair?

  • Tripwire Apr 17, 2008

    So why would it be fair to raise taxes on people making 102,000? I'm sure they worked just as hard or harder for their money as those making under that amount.

  • HockeyRules Apr 17, 2008

    "The USA Today qouted Obama saying that he would raise taxes."

    Only on those making more than 102,000 in income. I'm sure just saying raising taxes is more dramatic, but at least be accurate about it.

  • HockeyRules Apr 17, 2008

    "Just to prove there is data supporting these "claims" that people are making: "

    You do realize that this article touches only raising the limit on income subject to social security tax, not an actual increase in the rate?

    Only those making greater than 102,000 would be impacted if this was enacted. That would exclude a great majority of Americans.

  • HockeyRules Apr 17, 2008

    Actually, Harrison, this is not what the abstract on that source says at all. It does not deal with the source of the income expended, rather the fact that certain racial groups spend more on visible goods. You are making a connection between the makeup of the racial groups and their use of social services, the abstract you quote did not say that at all.

    Besides, that was not pics initial claim anyway and he still has not provided any proof.

More...