A few weeks ago, he was Front-Runner Freddy, but now he’s Flip-Flop Freddy, Flub-a-Dub Freddy, and, worse yet, Free-Fall Freddy.

In part, that’s a reminder of the fragility of the early lead in political contests. Four years ago, the suggestion that Michael Bloomberg, a businessman unknown to the vast majority of New Yorkers, would become mayor was laughable. Early last year, local Democrats were elbowing each other to be at the head of the line to support the candidacy of Howard Dean for president. The City Council speaker, Gifford Miller, was recruiting his lemming-like colleagues to line up behind the former Vermont governor, who seemed a shoo-in for the Democratic nomination – until real voters got into the act.

The early enthusiasm for the former Bronx borough president Fernando Ferrer now appears to have been based on two factors: ambivalence toward Mayor Bloomberg and the high name recognition of Mr. Ferrer, a residual effect of his strong showing in 2001.

Once this campaign got under way, reality began to set in. When he had to begin to articulate actual positions on actual issues, Mr. Ferrer faltered. Moreover, the blunder he committed that has dominated the campaign news for weeks did not come as a result of tough interrogation by a reporter or analyst, but rather as a result of a question gnawing at the gut of an unknown law enforcement officer concerned about Mr. Ferrer’s possibly becoming his boss.

We will never know for sure whether Mr. Ferrer had really moderated his views on the events surrounding the shooting of Amadou Diallo or was simply pandering to a group he desperately wanted to impress. If it is possible to make things even worse, however, in his “apology” last Friday, Mr. Ferrer only compounded his original woes.

The phrase “tendency to over-indict” is at the heart of his problem. Many New Yorkers, as well as the jury in Albany that acquitted the four police officers involved, believe that was the case. No, says Mr. Ferrer, backpedaling furiously, that’s not what he meant. It wasn’t the cops who were over-indicted – implying that they were indeed cold-blooded murderers – but all police. Huh?

It is the opposite that is true. There was no evidence that the four cops had any deliberate intent to dispatch Diallo. Rather, the incident was a tragic misunderstanding arising out of a situation in which four police officers, who had never worked together before and were not prepared for all possible contingencies, were sent to an unfamiliar, dangerous neighborhood. If blame was to be assessed, it was right to put it on the systemic failures of training and supervision by the New York Police Department – and most other police forces – as a whole. As a result of this incident, important changes in procedure have been put into place.

Systemic guilt, however, was unsatisfying to those whipped into a frenzy in the period following the shooting. Mr. Ferrer had to understand that the protests led by his ally the Reverend Alford Sharpton, which he prominently participated in, were a demand for the indictment of the four officers, as well as a general protest against the policing policies of the Giuliani administration. This is why Mr. Ferrer’s latest clarification of his remarks rings so hollow.

In fairness, he is so caught up in a no-win situation that there really isn’t any “good” strategy left to Mr. Ferrer to extricate himself from the mess he has created. Evidence is ample that the black leaders who so enthusiastically endorsed his “two cities” campaign four years ago were drifting away from him anyway. The flip-flop on the Diallo matter only kicked the door open conveniently for them, to the huge benefit of the Manhattan borough president, C.Virginia Fields, who now suddenly is the “hot” candidate.

There’s nothing new here. Blacks’ political leaders have long been resistant to marching under Latino leadership. In 1985, Herman Badillo’s quixotic challenge of Mayor Koch at the height of his popularity was cut short by the decision of the city’s African-American political elite to abandon their earlier promises of support. Instead, they endorsed a token bid by Assemblyman Herman Farrell, a clear, and totally successful, effort to thwart Mr. Badillo.

Appearing Monday evening on New York 1’s “Road to City Hall,” Mayor Dinkins could barely contain his disdain for Mr. Ferrer. While the courtly Mr. Dinkins would never trash Mr. Ferrer outright, his coldness toward his former colleague on the Board of Estimate was painfully evident, going so far as to remind viewers that he was arrested before Mr. Ferrer during Rev. Sharpton’s 1999 Diallo protests.

This would not be the first time Mr. Dinkins worked to derail Mr. Ferrer. In 1997, at the instant that the Bronx president was announcing his first try for City Hall, Mr. Dinkins hinted that he might be available for a rerun against the man who defeated him four years earlier, Mayor Giuliani. The air quickly left Mr. Ferrer’s balloon as, for two long weeks, speculation mounted over a possible Dinkins-Giuliani rematch.

When Mr. Dinkins finally ended the media charade, he immediately threw his support to the hapless candidacy of his successor in Manhattan’s Borough Hall, Ruth Messinger. Mr. Ferrer was reduced to withdrawing shortly thereafter, with his tail between his legs.

That bad experience may have presaged Mr. Ferrer’s 2001 strategy to bypass the traditional black political leadership and head right to Rev. Sharpton. This year, the black political empire has struck back, drawing first blood with Mr. Ferrer’s own light sabre. It is increasingly likely that Mr. Sharpton will follow their lead, not the other way around.