This may bother some priests itching to abuse the pulpit:

Denver Archbishop Charles J. Chaput [did] issue a new directive this week that clarifies what political activity is allowed by clergy and prohibiting them from endorsing or contributing money in partisan elections.

But they will have to suck it up for the sake of their role in society, which is not political.

Same goes for newsies, of course: They routinely claim neutrality.  Why?  So they can fulfil their role in society, which depends on their credibility.

I have the script right here for that and am reading carefully.

It’s not a problem in Denver, where only one donor said he’s a Denver cleric, a deacon.

But nationwide, about 100 Catholic priests and deacons have contributed nearly $100,000 to federal candidates or political parties in the 2007-08 election cycle, according to a Coloradoan review of FEC records.

Most of the contributions are to Republican groups or candidates, particularly outspoken opponents of abortion. However, the largest single recipient of Catholic clerical money is presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, a supporter of abortion rights.

Suckers for populist rhetoric?  Mad about the war?  This latter is my guess.  Pound for pound, there’s more pacifism among mainstream religious professionals, is my educated guess. 

However, issues are not out of bounds:

While restricted in partisan political activity, clergy have an obligation to speak out on important moral issues such as abortion or immigration, [archdiocesan spokeswoman Jeanette] DeMelo said.

“The church’s role in the public square is to help Catholics understand the teaching of their church regarding moral issues and encourage them to make informed decisions in light of those moral principles,” she said.

So pro-life and [pro?-] immigration preaching OK:

“Political campaigns prohibited would be those that are strictly partisan; in other words, the priests or deacons cannot support political parties or candidates in a public way. Right-to-life or immigration initiatives are not strictly partisan — in fact, we encourage that they not be partisan,” she said.

I insert “pro-“ before immigration because priests have been quite prominent on marches, etc.

However, very few preachers have gone whole hog as Fr. Michael Pfleger did in l’affaire Hillary at Obama’s former church, Trinity UCC.  They don’t name names but make their points in other ways, as I pointed out a few years back in a Wednesday Journal column, “If you’re Irish and you’re Catholic… [you’re a Dem].”

The man never ceases to amaze.  When 72 senators voted for a “sense of the Senate” resolution last year rejecting the moveon.org ad rhyming (Gen.) Petraeus with “betray us,” O. took a pass, though he voted on two other bills that day, explaining:

“The focus of the United States Senate should be on ending this war, not on criticizing newspaper advertisements,” Mr. Obama said. “This amendment was a stunt designed only to score cheap political points while what we should be doing is focusing on the deadly serious challenge we face in Iraq.”

But the other day in Independence, Missouri, when he came out as a patriot, he bemoaned the fact that “a general providing his best counsel on how to move forward in Iraq was accused of betrayal.”

“That was then,” says Kim Strassel in Wall St. Journal’s Political Diary

 — back when Mr. Obama was apparently eager not to ruffle the Netroots activists. This is now — with the MoveOn.org endorsement firmly in hand, Mr. Obama evidently feels free to pander in the opposite direction. Mr. Obama is certainly serving up the audacity of something, but I wouldn’t call it hope.

He’s got brass.  But as for balls, can you imagine him confronting an international enemy with something he believes in that goes against the polls?  This will be the Obama security problem — not the leftist friends who can’t count on him but his firm determination to do anything that preserves popularity.

Bill Clinton is steamed:

A senior Democrat who worked for Mr Clinton has revealed that he recently told friends Mr Obama could “kiss my ass” in return for his support.

What’s more, he’s not betting on O.:

A second source said that the former president has kept his distance because he still does not believe Mr Obama can win the election.

On the other hand, O. got “effusive,” said UK Telegraph:

“I know how much we need both Bill and Hillary Clinton as a party. They have done so much great work. We need them badly.”

So what?

The Democrat told the Telegraph: “He’s been angry for a while. But everyone thought he would get over it. He hasn’t. I’ve spoken to a couple of people who he’s been in contact with and he is mad as hell.

“He’s saying he’s not going to reach out, that Obama has to come to him. One person told me that Bill said Obama would have to quote kiss my ass close quote, if he wants his support.

“You can’t talk like that about Obama – he’s the nominee of your party, not some house boy you can order around. . . .

Ouch.

The whole tone of this e-blast to potential contributers is one of dreadful, overweening pride and arrogance:

Dear Jim —

On Monday, everyone will be watching our fundraising totals to see if we can compete with the McCain campaign.

This month is the first test of our grassroots fundraising strategy since we declared our independence from the broken campaign finance system.

You can help build our organization and show that a movement of ordinary people giving only what they can afford is changing the way presidential campaigns are funded.

Now is the perfect time to step up and own a piece of this campaign. And if you make your first donation right now, you’ll receive a special gift.

Make a donation of $15 or more by midnight on Monday, June 30th, and show off your support with an Obama logo car magnet:

etc.

Note the “broken campaign finance system” — the trumped-up talking point that justifies his not honoring his pledge of only months ago.  When did it break?  Since then?  No?  Then at what point in that last few months did O. and his people decide it was broken?

Note the ridiculous, mendacious “to see if we can compete with the McCain campaign,” after he broke his pledge only when it became clear he was swamping McCain with money.

We have seen John Kerry, Mr. Obama, and you’re no John Kerry.

We used to call John Kerry a flip-flopper for his enbarrassing quote on his opposition to Iraq war funding. Obama has now changed position on almost every key position in this election, and exposed himself as incompetent as a Constitutional law analyst as well. Democratic superdelegates may want to rethink their position on this nomination before Obama changes his party registration, too.

Yes, Chi Trib, there is an “inartful” way of saying what I say now, that the D.C. gun law is unconstitutional, and it’s what you heard my campaign say last November.

It’s not his fault! 

Daley administration wants to fire this guy?

He’s the water dept. foreman who wore his GPS-equipped cell phone on the golf course when he was supposed to be working.

Winston Cole, a $106,115-a-year foreman of sewer bricklayers, got an earlier warning for allegedly driving to Indiana on city time to buy cheaper gas for his personal car and avoid paying Chicago gas taxes, according to co-workers.

What did he do wrong?  He wasn’t door-banging for votes, maybe.

More to the point, who is his sponsor?  Who sent him?

We know who sent Homero Tristan, just named as the city’s $147,156-a-year Human Resources commissioner, replacing a woman who left the job after a “scathing” report by the federal hiring monitor. 

That would be Alderman Danny Solis, 25^th Ward, whose political action committee Tristan heads, with help of his wife Isolde — kidding. 

Solis’s sister, an old Hillary C. hand, recently headed her campaign but got pushed out last month and may be switching to the Big O.