Politics and Cynicism

Logically, the second definition doesn't hold--positive outcomes (by virtually any definition) do not and never have ruled the day, completely without regard to the machinations of anyone whosoever. Also, it presents a very particular idea of "positive" events. If the only possible positive outcome is fueled by self-interest (as the second definition implies), there is no interpersonal concept of positive.

However, we are imbued--whether hard coded or learned--with an interpersonal sense of positive outcomes to most situations we might encounter. It requires effort to formulate a situation in which choosing from two or more possibilities does not present both an acceptably positive outcome and a more negative one. Arguably this sense of positive and negatives also sprouts from the basest instinct for self-preservation, but even so, self-sacrifice for the greater good is almost universally regarded as more positive than alternatives.

Therefore, cynicism is simply an acknowledgment that some, most, or all people conform to false (read: selfish) positives rather than real (read: interpersonal) positives. To apply this in plain English to the story at hand:

The only truly positive outcome possible in this story is the proper meting of justice to Larry Craig as the law defines it, and the subsequent decisions made by his voting constituents as to his electability. It would not be interpersonally positive for the general public to successfully reverse charges made against him that were factual, or to then mislead the public into siding with him. Therefore it all hinges on whether or not he actually did what he admitted to doing--something we'll probably never know. And at the end of the day, truly positive outcomes will still be out of the reach of those who seek them in self-interest.