Craig's Wide Stance Defense

Besides having a "wide stance" problem, Craig has a classic Law and Order plot dilemma: do we believe the respected senator or the veteran cop?

While he gets credit for a resounding denial -- reminiscent of "I did not have sex with that women," or "I had nothing to do with killing dogs," -- public cynicism will probably go with the cop on this. Why? Craig pleads guilty, blames the media, has the chutzpah to equate himself and his problem with Idaho (the "cloud over Idaho" line). But the tipping point is his "wide-stance" defense. If you've seen photos of those Minnesota stalls, it's very scary imagining why anyone would sit that way.

There's his stand-up denial delivery to consider. When you have to read from your notes when saying, "I'm not gay. I have never been gay," you may not have actually internalized your message yet.

Then there's the "tell." Poker players, who look for such things, may notice the body shifting "tell" when he vehemently says, "I am not gay." At this point, the best thing for the Senator to do -- is fess up, blame some addiction, find God, and go into re-hab.