A novel proposal for John Kerry’s presidential campaign already has stirred up the usual mixed reviews. The idea is that he would appoint a “shadow cabinet” to lead a national debate on major issues during the long eight-month presidential campaign that has already begun.

The suggestion came from Chris Sprigman, a fellow at the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School. In a New York Times op-ed page article, he pointed out that in some other countries, notably Britain, the opposition appoints members to “shadow” the ministers in the real cabinet, critiquing government actions and offering alternative policies. If their party wins the election, the shadow ministers customarily begin service promptly in the new cabinet.

One letter writer, Milton Gwirtzman, co-author of a biography of Robert F. Kennedy, called the proposal “a well-meaning but poor strategy.” He objected that it would divert attention to the potential cabinet members and away from the record and policies of Mr. Kerry himself.

That might be just the point. The Bush team is already zeroing in on Mr. Kerry’s record in the Senate, which contains reversals and inconsistencies. Many media outlets are in full cry on the Kerry flip-flop issue, although in this he joins the president, who changed his mind on, for instance, nation building and environmental standards.

Mr. Sprigman went so far as to suggest some members of a Kerry shadow cabinet: Elena Kagan, the first female dean of the Harvard Law School, as shadow attorney general; Gen. Wesley Clark as shadow national security adviser, and former Sen. Gary Hart, who warned against terrorism before 9-11 as chairman of a federal commission on national security, as shadow secretary of homeland security.

Mr. Sprigman conceded that Sen. Kerry might be reluctant to form a shadow cabinet because of the risk that a member might say or do something embarrassing. But he said that risk would be worth taking, since Mr. Kerry can’t afford a huge paid television campaign like the president’s and needs a strategy to stay in the news until they both get $75 million in federal funds after the conventions.

From a public point of view, voters might welcome a vigorous debate on major issues from a variety of current or potential cabinet members rather than what promises to be an eight-month shower of mud thrown by both sides.