Bill Bratton bailed the city out of its crime crisis, while Giuliani took the credit. But Bill Clinton is the one who allocated more federal funding for community law enforcement -- and, more importantly, he's the one who turned the economy around. The city's renaissance would never have happened if the economy had remained stagnant.

Zippy the Chimp could have been mayor, and with Bratton and Clinton doing their stuff, the results would have been much the same. It would be hard to find a major American city, with the possible of exception of Detroit, that was not dramatically revitalized under Clinton's economy.

Also, Giuliani was by far the most Manhattan-centric mayor we've ever had. He didn't "eliminate" the porn shops -- he just moved them to the outer boroughs, where some neighborhoods became flooded with them. And if he had cared a whit about improving the crumbling business districts of the outer boroughs, we would have lost significantly fewer companies to New Jersey after 9/11.

For those concerned about Giuliani making it to the White House, take heart: Bush proved that even flogging 9/11 shamelessly will only get you so far--and with any luck, he's played that tune so often that no one wants to hear it from anyone any more. And even Giuliani's former hagiographers are getting sick of him. Recently, a member of the 9/11 Commission expressed regret that they had let him off so easily when they held hearings in New York.

Then there is the exhaustive vetting process, which, for Giuliani, would be even more scandalous than Kerik's. The mistresses. The police detectives used as chauffers to ferry Rudy and his mistresses around town and out to the Hamptons. The cronyism and corruption. There is NO WAY Giuliani will survive scrutiny.

Imagine hearing or reading, "If I see one more freakin' menorah, I'm gonna smack someone." No one would interpret that as anything but anti-Semitism. Yet people feel free to whack Christmas up one side and down the other. In fact, it's fashionable to do so. But you know what? It's every bit as bigoted and narrow-minded.

I love Christmas for reasons that have nothing to do with religion. I love watching "A Christmas Carol" -- the Alastair Sim version -- with my husband and my Mom. Ditto "A Charlie Brown Christmas" and the Grinch, which remind me of my childhood and all the people who are now gone. There is nothing in these shows that anyone with a kind heart, regardless of their religion, cannot appreciate.

I love Christmas carols, which speak of joy and goodwill toward all and peace on earth. My favorite is "It Came Upon A Midnight Clear," the lyrics of which are truly beautiful. If there is anyone who cannot identify with lyrics such as, "for lo, the days are hastening on," I have yet to meet them. To me, that says, cling to your loved ones and appreciate them, and revel in this warm season in the midst of the cold, while you can.

If you have a chip on your shoulder about Christmas, or about any holiday of any religion that promotes good will, kindness, charity and peace on earth, you need to do a bit of soul-searching about what your real motives and prejudices are, and you need to open your heart to traditions that may not be familiar to you but that are worthy of respect or at least of tolerance. The fault lies not in the Christmas star, but in yourselves.

Wouldn't it have been cheaper and easier just to run the five-second clip from "Animal House" where Kroger screams, "The Negroes stole our dates!"

As far as the ad's accusations that Ford took money from pornographers, why haven't the Dems attempted to shame the Repugs about the millions they've taken from large media conglomerates--which are the biggest purveyors of--and profiters from--porn in the entire country?

Lamont should ask Joe Lieberman if 1) he will pledge right now to caucus with the Democrats if reelected (Joe's gone a bit squidgy on this issue recently) and 2) if he will pledge to serve his entire term, so the Republican governor cannot appoint his successor.

I still have a feeling that some back-door deal has been made, where either 1) Joe manufactures a big heapin' bowl of outrage at something some Democrat says or does, and uses that as an excuse to bolt the party (possibly using the old "I didn't leave my party, my party left me" canard); or 2) Joe leaves the Senate after getting an appointment from the Bush administration or another well-placed Republican source (they could throw Rumsfeld overboard to build up some goodwill for the 2008 elections, and put Lieberman in at the Department of Defense, or give him any other appointment that would flatter his ego and lure him from his Senate seat, or get one of their rich Pioneers to let him head up some company or "thinktank").

I'd be shocked if he firmly pledged to caucus with the Democrats and serve his whole term, and that might give some Democrats second thoughts about supporting him. I think if a lot of Dems realized they may in fact be supporting a soon-to-be Republican, or someone who would resign to make way for one, they'd back off.

...so what's a few more months, more or less?

And Louis Freeh?!? What, Henry Kissinger was too busy lunching with Bush and Cheney?

Of course, the last time I looked, we actually had a current Justice Department that could have looked into this matter. But I'm guessing that, having been burned by Fitzgerald--a prosecutor who actually did his job instead of curling up like a Republican lap dog--the party has decided they're better off hiring a friendly, reliable rent-a-cop.

And God knows Freeh has time on his hands: after he spent his entire tenure with the Clinton administration obsessing over the President's zipper instead of protecting the country from real threats, I'm guessing he's not exactly being bombarded with job offers in the security field.