Senator Clinton has been running around town, most recently at yesterday’s parade, declaring that she does not intend to run for president of America in 2004. If Mrs. Clinton is telling the truth, we urge her to reconsider and to pick up the banner of centrism within the Democratic field.

When Al Gore withdrew from the presidential race back in December of 2002, we ran an editorial, “On to 2004,” that spoke of the centrist credentials of some of the candidates. Senator Lieberman has supported school vouchers and the war against Saddam Hussein. Rep. Richard Gephardt also supported the war and has in the past expressed support for tax reforms that would simplify and flatten the tax system. The former governor of Vermont, Howard Dean, boasted on his Web site that he “has cut the income tax twice” and “removed the sales tax on most clothing.”

In the event, however, the Lieberman campaign is lagging in the key early campaign states of Iowa and New Hampshire. Dr. Dean has campaigned as an anti-war candidate in favor of raising taxes. Mr. Gephardt is running against free trade. What the Democrats need is a pro-welfare-reform, pro-death penalty, pro-Iraq War, pro-free-trade candidate who can also excite their liberal base. In other words, they need Mrs. Clinton.

What about what the country needs? Well, this is not an endorsement editorial, and we’re generally pleased with President Bush’s leadership. But it’ll be hard for the Democrats to keep the president’s feet to the fire if all they’re offering is tax hikes and appeasement. It would be better for the country if someone were out there trying to defend what achievements there were — free trade, welfare reform — of the Bill Clinton presidency. It would be better for the country and for the Democrats were someone reminding the country that a sizeable number of Democrats voted for the war and that when the going gets tough, not all the Democrats get going.

So the best thing would be for Mrs. Clinton to get into the race herself on a centrist platform. Some would argue that her liberal image and record make her a flawed messenger for such a platform. But at the moment, polls show her as the strongest Democrat in the field. And having made her way from a Goldwater Girl to a leading liberal, Mrs. Clinton certainly is versatile enough to carry this message. If Mr. Gore could transform himself from Southern moderate to angry populist, certainly Mrs. Clinton can campaign on a centrist platform. What matters is the message and the mandate as much as the candidate.

Short of getting into the race herself, Mrs. Clinton could make an early endorsement of Mr. Lieberman to help save the Democrats and the country from the radical left. If she neither gets into the race herself nor throws her political energy and star power behind Mr. Lieberman in the early going, Mrs. Clinton could fairly be suspected of hoping that a left-wing Democrat wins the nomination. If the Democrat loses, that clears the way for Mrs. Clinton in 2008. But it’s a cynical way to clear the decks at a time when the issues at stake are larger than any individual’s ambitions.

Like it or not, Mrs. Clinton is a major national political figure and a major figure in the Democratic Party. The Democrats are now trying to determine the direction of their party. Senator Lieberman is on one side of the debate. Howard Dean is on another. Mrs. Clinton so far is staying out of it. Mrs. Clinton makes herself out to be a proud New Yorker. We’ve never known a real New Yorker, though, who would hang back and keep quiet when a question as important as the direction of the Democrats is on the table.