Having another go? Kerry doffs the gloves

WASHINGTON -- John F. Kerry's decision to lead last week's unsuccessful filibuster of Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s Supreme Court nomination met with predictable ridicule from Republicans and some Democrats, but it could end up being his smartest political move in a long time.

The gratitude of liberal activists who hate Alito will be helpful if Kerry runs for president again. His willingness to pick up the flag and fight when no one except Edward M. Kennedy was willing to join him may impress those who think Kerry is a flip-flopper who has never exerted leadership in the Senate. And even the ridicule may be useful, in the sense that voters need to purge their frustration with Kerry before reconsidering him.

''I think it was a historic day yesterday," chortled the normally staid White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, after Kerry announced that he would lead the filibuster. ''It was the first-ever call for a filibuster from the slopes of Davos, Switzerland."

Indeed, Kerry's sense of imagery hasn't improved since 2004: He was attending the World Economic Forum in Switzerland when he announced that he would lead the filibuster. McClellan seized on the scene to revive the Bush campaign's 2004 depiction of Kerry as an aristocrat at play, goofing on the ski slopes. But it would have been just as much of a political hit to tell the truth: Kerry was hobnobbing with a bunch of international leaders.

Nonetheless, Kerry may now be better able to take these hits, because voters have had a chance to get to know his quirks. Republicans, who tend to run for president multiple times, have discovered that voters can be more forgiving the second time around. Ronald Reagan's bellicose rhetoric was less of a problem in 1980 than in 1976; George H. W. Bush's preppy expressions didn't rankle as much in 1988 as in 1980; and Bob Dole's grumpiness didn't raise as many red flags in 1996 as in 1988. It's very likely that no one will worry about John McCain being too tightly wound in 2008, because voters will have had eight years to assess him.

Like many people, Kerry has strengths and weaknesses that spring from the same well. The oblivious, slightly above-it-all quality that had prevented him from connecting with some voters in 2004 is the same quality that has prevented him from being deterred by rampant skepticism about another presidential run. Maybe now it will be seen as a sign of determination.

Even if so, another presidential campaign will be a tough climb. The betting in Washington is that Kerry will opt out, as did Al Gore in 2004, when former supporters tell him they're going with other candidates.

Still, it's not too early to speculate about how he might fit into the Democratic field.

Democrats have a soft spot for fresh faces, and have had their only recent success with nominees from Republican states. So former governor Mark R. Warner of Virginia and Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana will get long looks, though both will be severely tested over their lack of national security credentials. The same is true for Kerry's 2004 running mate, the former North Carolina senator, John R. Edwards.

Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin will run as an anti-Iraq war candidate, and may excite the same passions as Howard Dean in 2004; it may be enough to make him a factor in the race, but not the nominee.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, however, has used her seat on the Senate Armed Services Committee to bone up on military issues. She is now regarded as a reliable supporter of military spending who has stayed loyal to the troops in Iraq.

Still, she's Hillary Clinton, and the possibility of a political meltdown -- through scandal, bitter attacks, or refusal to accept a woman president -- would follow her candidacy like a pack of vultures.

Kerry, her fellow Northeastern senator, stands in her shadow, like a former star hoping for a chance to get back on center stage. His doggedness, combined with the fact that he has already been vetted by the national media, may make him a reliable second choice for those currently hoping for Clinton.

And on Alito, he outflanked her. On Jan. 26, The New York Times ran an editorial entitled ''Senators in Need of a Spine," excoriating Democrats for opting not to use all their procedural levers to block Alito. The Times's cry was answered not by New York's senators, but by those in Massachusetts.

Then, after Kerry and Kennedy began rounding up support, Clinton decided she would, after all, back the filibuster. It was a decision made with one eye on 2008. And, surprisingly, with one eye on John Kerry.

Peter S. Canellos is the Globe's Washington bureau chief. National Perspective is his weekly analysis of events in the capital and beyond.