[T]here is a difference between reading an article about Mrs Gingrich and watching her tell her story, in her own words, on network television, two days before a primary election. The conventional wisdom is that Mr Gingrich is already inoculated against the effects of damaging revelations about his personal life. He had better hope that wisdom holds.
Jessica Grose, on the other hand, expects the interview to have little impact:
Marianne's interview may even have a positive effect on South Carolina voters. They may see her as a bitter woman who's just attempting revenge-by-network news, and this may galvanize their wavering support for Newt. They may not even believe whatever Marianne has to say. Unless Marianne has photographic evidence of Newt drop kicking several puppies and then peeing on Ronald Reagan's headstone, I don't think the interview will make much of a difference.
John Cassidy suspects that the heavy news day will help Gingrich weather the storm:
The ex-wife bomb was going to explode in Newt’s face at some point, and Perry’s endorsement did a good job of relegating it to the second story of the day—or third if you count the news from Iowa. …Still, Newt is going to have to react to the ABC interview, and in a fuller manner than he did this morning, when, speaking on NBC, he criticized ABC News for “intruding into family things that are more than a decade old,” and adding, “I’m not going to say anything negative about Marianne.”
The Dish 