viz.

Although Clinton's ad has been widely mocked (and parodied), perhaps not surprisingly the pundits are already asking whether it played a part in Clinton's victories last night. Slate's John Dickerson writes,

Did Clinton's children-in-peril ad pay off? Even before the results were in on Tuesday, it seemed to. As late as 3:30 p.m. on Election Day, the Obama campaign held a conference call to push back hard against it. Greg Craig, an Obama supporter but longtime Clinton friend and Bill Clinton's lawyer during his impeachment trial, unloaded on Clinton. Saying that she would "do anything to win this nomination," Craig repeatedly asserted that she had failed her "commander-in-chief test" multiple times with respect to the Iraq war.

Is there some disconnect here between, on the one hand, widespread dismissal of the ad (with reactions ranging from disgust to eye-rolling) and the extent to which many people are apparently taking it seriously? Does it simply prove the old idea that while negative ads are disliked by voters, they still work? (Dickerson concludes that the question cannot be conclusively answered, writing, "Exit polls don't give clear evidence that the ad paid off." You can see his full discussion here.)

On another note: last night on MSNBC I heard Brian Williams suggest that Obama's response was ineffective because it was, visually, too similar to the original. I'm not sure how that could be true, unless voters were watching it...with the sound turned off? The second half of the response ad is very different from the original.

There was also a quick response from the Obama campaign: