What is the lesson to be drawn from a campaign that began with a promise to be a "different kind of politics," but is now an example of politics at its worst? My explanation is this: a simple failure to present a compelling message, combined with a bad case of campaign psychosis.

The Bradley camp has been looking at the wrong problem. At first, they suffered because they did not respond to attacks. However, that is not why they are in such trouble now. Attack doesn't get you very far if you don't have anything else to offer. Just ask Bob Dole, who pounded Clinton's character for most of the 1996 general election, partly because he and his advisors could not agree on any other message to send.

Voters respond first and foremost to a message. Attacks can expose weakness in the opposition, and we political scientists used to think they could dampen turnout, before the South Carolina primary changed our minds. But attacks that are not followed up with a consistent and winning message are pointless. Gore combined attacks on Bradley's health plan with an appealing positive message. Whereas the Bradley campaign, once a high-minded crusade for a new politics, is now stuck in full-throttle negativity with no message.

What went wrong with the Bradley camp? First and foremost, they lost their message. The original and appealing offer Bill Bradley made to Democrats was that since Al Gore was a wooden campaigner burdened by Clinton fatigue, Bradley could ride in on a white horse and save the party by being a fresh face, a nominee without baggage. In short, he could win in November, whereas Gore clearly could not.

That message had appeal before the old Gore disappeared into earth tones and became an alpha male once more. That message died when the new Gore was born. The new Gore is an energized stump speaker who connects with voters. Bradley is the same old Bradley, a poor stump speaker who has always had trouble connecting with voters. Compared to the old Gore, Bradley looked good. Compared to the new Gore, Bradley looked far less electable.

Once Bradley lost the argument over electability, the Bradley campaign should have closed up shop. Instead, they scrambled for another message. The new message would be Big Ideas. Huge new plans for national health care and ending childhood poverty were touted as Message #2. Problem is, not many people are in the market for Big Ideas right now. The first Clinton Administration floundered and failed with a series of Big Ideas, because the Clinton camp mistook their win over Bush Senior as a mandate for sweeping government programs. In fact, the vote for Clinton was really a vote against Bush, and particularly the Bush economy, as every political scientist must concede.

The best evidence for this is the fact that when Clinton tried to implement what he truly believed the country wanted, he and his team were crushed. And instead of an outraged electorate exacting revenge on Congress for not passing the Clinton agenda, there was the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress. Some times are ripe for big, bold ideas. This election year is not one of those times.

Once Bradley lost the argument over Big Ideas, the Bradley campaign should have once again considered closing up shop. Instead, they went to Message #3, which is, as best as I can tell, that Bradley is just plain a better, more honest person than Al Gore. Because Gore is not as good a fellow as Bradley, the party should dump Gore. There are major problems with this message, as well.

Bradley tries to paint himself as the only honest and true Democrat in the race. But it is always dishonest for a campaign's opposition research team to dig up a few out of context votes, and wave them in the faces of voters as proof of the opponent's evil nature.

Votes cast in Congress, especially over a long career, can be twisted and turned to create virtually any image. If Gore voted at times with anti-choice members of the House, then he can't be pro-choice. If Gore once voted on a procedural matter that can be twisted into an anti-black vote, Gore can't be for racial equality. Never explain to voters the difference between a procedural vote and a vote on substance, or the difference between voting in committee and on the floor. Just wave the selected votes in the face of the electorate, very much as Senator Bradley waved the supposedly incontrovertible proof of Gore's evil record in the vice president's face in the CNN debate.

You can't send a credible message that the other guy is dishonest if your own campaign is dishonest as well. Voters know that Al Gore changing his mind about federal funds for abortion over twenty years is not the same as being a political weathervane, whose current positions can't be trusted.

Since Message numbers one, two, and three have no traction, why doesn't the Bradley camp close up shop now? My best explanation is campaign psychosis. This occurs when campaigns lose their reason for being, and the only reason they have for continuing on is the investment of time and trouble people have made in a candidacy. At this point, campaign staff lose touch with rationality. Poll numbers are interpreted in bizarre ways, and small shreds of hope are magnified into major reasons for optimism. This is the only explanation for the Bradley camp moving into Washington State to hotly contest a non-binding primary.

As a former Bradley supporter, loyal Democrat, and political scientist, I urge the Bradley campaign, full of good people who want very much to make a positive difference in American politics, to do the right thing. Close up shop now, and spend the remaining campaign cash on another, more worthy Bradley crusade: to elect a Democratic Congress. It is in this venue that Bradley's considerable talent and skill could be of historic use to the progressive cause.

I still believe Bill Bradley is an extraordinary man, and a great asset to the nation as an advocate for racial harmony and ending poverty. It is just plain sad to watch him succumb to campaign psychosis, along with the rest of his national staff. When the only message left is "Al Gore's not perfect", it's time to wrap it up, and do something more fitting the role of America's best political philosopher.

Monica Bauer teaches political science at the Metropolitan State College of Denver. She is the author of American Government: Readings and Responses.