CNN suddenly cuts to commercial break as Wolf Blitzer looks like he’s about to vomit: ‘Wasn’t feeling 100%’

NY Post ^ | 2/9/2024

[frogjerk]

CNN swiftly cut to a commercial break after anchor Wolf Blitzer looked like he was about to vomit during an interview with House Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin on Thursday.

As Raskin (D-Md.) talked about the dispute in Colorado over Donald Trump appearing on the ballot, Blitzer made a series of pained expressions as he seemingly tried to stifle himself from getting sick on air.

[Col Frank Slade]

Wolf almost Ralphed.

[frank ballenger]

Good one. We can empathize.

[frank ballenger]

What if he tried a different mixture of 2 or more illegal drugs and they had an unexpected effect on him? Potencies and cuttings and impurities in drugs can surprise the users.

June 6, 2008: When Jack Cafferty asked him if he ever smoked marijuana, he laughed and stuttered his way through a non-denial denial: “No, uhh, well, uhh, you know, you’re getting into a sensitive area.”
HuffPost by Danny Shea.

[Secret Agent Man]

I understand that.

[Albion Wilde]

Raskin has that effect on me, too.

[Albion Wilde]

one of the suspects in the murder could not tell a lie without feeling nauseous and throwing up.

Not quite the same, but reminds me of the great scene in The Sopranos when the FBI was grilling Adriana, and when she realized she was going to have to rat on the mob to save her own skin, she barfed all over the polished wood conference table.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Well, yeah, talking with Jamie Raskin would make me sick, too.

[rlmorel]

I remember that scene-I only watched the Sopranos in the last three years. My wife had never seen it either, so we binge-watched it the way we are watching Yellowstone now.

I didn’t like the Sopranos. It was just the story. Too negative for too long. And Yellowstone is like that, except it has woke stuff all mixed into it, and I hate that.

[faucetman]

I think he actually threw up a little bit in his mouth, and swallowed.

[WKUHilltopper]

Had a bad weener, did ya Wolfie?

[Albion Wilde]

Yes, I guess there is a difference in viewer response between seeing a story in small doses and seeing it all at once. Somebody should take these long sagas and edit them into, say, a three- or four-hour sit down.

On the other hand, the Sopranos movie, The Many Saints of Newark, was one of the worst films I've seen in years. Horribly disappointing prequel written after-the-fact of a successful tv series.

I speak Italian and had lived amonst the mob before I moved to where I am now; so The Sopranos had a familiarity to me; there were a number of "asides" in Italian or the American half-Italian figures of speech, and a particular kind of absurdity and dark humor that I enjoyed. I watched it on cable well after the original broadcast, but serially.

Yellowstone looks interesting.I read they had some squabbles with Sam Elliott in the prequel, 1883, over the historically inaccurate gay stuff and woketude. Would like to catch up with the saga one of these days. Helen Mirren's wardrobe in 1923, for one thing!

The series appears to have influenced her in real life. She wore a beautiful prairie-style dress recently when she took part in the Willie Nelson 90th Birthday broadcast, which was amazing, btw. It's still available to stream over the internet on CBS.com/

[rlmorel]

Your perspective is an interesting one.

Even though there are things you saw in the Sopranos that as someone with Italian heritage or at least, immersive exposure to Italians that you no doubt recognized.

My wife who is half Italian, had the same experience-there were things she understood quite well.

One of the things I try to stay on guard against is to keep in mind what I watch in “Yellowstone” is entertainment, and it needs to stay in that box. It isn’t history, and I think a lot of people who have watched it did not sandbox it in that fashion.

They think because they watched it, they understand Montana, cowboys, horses, cattle, reservations, Indians, etc.

They forget it is not only meant as entertainment, but is also someone trying to indoctrinate people to their viewpoint. Entertainment and indoctrination are not mutually exclusive for many people, and they are certainly doing it in “Yellowstone”. I have lost a lot of respect for Kevin Costner, because his fingerprints on it are very telling to me.

I wish it weren’t so.

That said, I find the performance of the Beth Dutton character in “Yellowstone” pretty amazing. That role is very well acted.

[Albion Wilde]

One of the things I try to stay on guard against is to keep in mind what I watch in “Yellowstone” is entertainment, and it needs to stay in that box. It isn’t history, and I think a lot of people who have watched it did not sandbox it in that fashion. They think because they watched it, they understand Montana, cowboys, horses, cattle, reservations, Indians, etc.

Too true! I read a lot of disputes between commenters on threads about the UK Royal Family because some freeper watched "The Crown" and thinks it was historically impeccable, which it reportedly wasn't at all. Much pseudo-historic entertainment is like "Tang" to anyone who likes orange juice—and history.

[rlmorel]

So true-that is a great analogy, “Tang” to Orange Juice!

My wife knows how much I love history (especially the history surrounding the founding of this nation, as improbable as it is) so for Christmas some years ago, one of my stocking stuffers was a DVD series by the History Channel “The Sons of Liberty”.

I was very excited, but after I began watching it, there were so many historically inaccurate things that I shoved it in a drawer and didn’t even look at it for several years.

It filled me with distaste for anything produced by the History Channel.

For example, their portrayal of Samuel Adams was in the form of young, late twenties counter-culture guy who carried knives and tomahawks with him, and knew how to use them, jumping off porch overhangs, knife in one hand, tomahawk in the other, like a Revolutionary War Superhero.

If you knew ANYTHING about Samuel Adams, you knew how silly that was. He was a forty-something, guy somewhat pudgy by accounts, and not in anyway skilled or versed in weapons or firearms. I was actually quite peeved about it. After all, the REAL story is interesting and improbable enough, why do THAT to it?

Anyway, within the last year I was online, and I saw an interview with the History Channel producer, and he said that series was never meant to be accurate or informative, merely...entertainment.

With that in mind, I tried watching it again, and as silly historically as it was, I enjoyed it as a fantasy, kind of the way I might enjoy watching the “Lord of The Rings” trilogy. Once I divorced it from reality, and knew it wasn’t going to pollute anything in my mind...I enjoyed it.

However, I know there are people who now might have an image of Samuel Adams in their mind that is very much at odds with reality!

[Albion Wilde]

Admirable that you were able to set aside your annoyance!

The younger generations often simply cannot imagine what restrictions were present in the old days. I often wonder how they will understand old suspense movies — “Like, why didn’t he just text them and find out?” or “Why didn’t he just put a tracker on his car and geolocate him?”

[rlmorel]

LOL! There is something just wrong with that "Like, why didn’t he just text them and find out?"

We LAUGH at this, but...we KNOW it is out there!