Righteous indignation abounds. Kos has been great all day; AMERICAblog has been great, too, and linked to an excellent commentary by Keith Olbermann; and TAPPED, though strangely silent so far, did at least point to a good post at MyDD.

On the real-people front, John Edwards came out in a hurry, and Chris Dodd was right on his heels. No word yet from most of the rest.

So if a picture tells a thousand words, and a sound tells a thousand pictures, then what happens when the sound is a recording of a single word? Does the world end?

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis nicely summarizes the Democrats' capitulation on timetables:

Sure, this time we caved, but next time boy that President Bush better watch out.

TPM notices that the New York Times has been paying less attention to Edwards than to Hillary or Obama.

This is a couple of weeks old, but it's a pretty great story, so I'll go ahead and post it anyway. According to former U.S. Attorney John McKay (who does admittedly have an ax to grind), one of Gonzales's first appearances before the assembled U.S. Attorneys was a speech that went like this:

"His first speech to us was a 'you work for the White House' speech," McKay recalled. "'I work for the White House, you work for the White House.'" ...

[McKay] looked around the meeting room and caught the eyes of his colleagues, who gave him looks of surprise at Gonzales' remarks. "We were stunned at what he was saying."

"Stunned," of course, because they'd all watched Gonzales's confirmation hearing a few weeks earlier, during which he'd said this:

And I feel a special obligation, maybe an additional burden coming from the White House to reassure the career people at the department, and to reassure the American people that that I'm not going to politicize the Department of Justice.

That's some good reassury.

Wolfowitz ha resignado!*

Update: Replacement speculation is running wild. Yesterday, the hot rumor was Tony Blair; today, Atrios thinks it'll be this guy.

* - Spanish for "I am the niño."

This is really neat:

Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) stood before the refrigerated section of the Safeway on Capitol Hill yesterday and looked longingly at the eggs.

At $1.29 for a half-dozen, he couldn't afford them.

Ryan and three other members of Congress have pledged to live for one week on $21 worth of food, the amount the average food stamp recipient receives in federal assistance. That's $3 a day or $1 a meal. They started yesterday.

It's a shame that only four Members were willing to try it, but it sure makes those four look pretty good. A tip of the hat to Jim McGovern, Jo Ann Emerson, Tim Ryan, and Jan Schakowsky.

Update: Ryan didn't make it the full week.

MSNBC on Falwell's importance to the White House, courtesy of the fine folks at TPM:

For some reason, this struck me as very funny:

In a one-page letter to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, McNulty said he will leave his post in late summer because of the "financial realities" brought on by "college-age children and two decades of public service."

McNulty, 49, said in an interview that the political tumult over the prosecutor dismissals -- including his role in providing inaccurate information to Congress -- did not play a part in his decision. He said he has not lined up a job but is considering his options<.

If you're going to lie about why you're resigning, at least take the time to come up with a logically consistent excuse.

Update: Jon Stewart caught it, too.

I'll tell you what: this John Edwards fellow, I think he's going places.

This afternoon's Judiciary hearing featured the following exchange:

Rep. Linda Sanchez: Are you aware that one month before [Debra] Yang resigned her post, White House Counsel Harriet Miers had asked Kyle Sampson if Ms. Yang planned to keep her post, or if, in Mr. Sampson's words to our investigators, "whether a vacancy could be created there in Los Angeles"? Were you aware of that?

[Pause]

Alberto Gonzalez: I think I'm... I think I may be aware of that.

It was such a ridiculous answer that he made himself laugh. I love it.

CongressDaily (et al) is reporting that Nancy Pelosi is going to allow the party progressives a pretty big -- albeit basically ceremonial -- vote this evening:

In a change of plans, House Democratic leaders today plan to bring up legislation that would begin redeployment of U.S. forces and contractors from Iraq not later than 90 days after enactment and to be completed within 180 days before turning to a second Iraq war supplemental. The bill was introduced Wednesday night by Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., a prominent member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, after discussions with Speaker Pelosi. The vote on the McGovern bill is a concession to antiwar members of the Democratic Caucus who are concerned that supplemental proposed by Appropriations Chairman Obey would not permit until July an up-or-down vote on removing troops from combat zones.

It'll fail, obviously, but the roll call should be interesting.

[Sadly, this is likely to signal an end to any organized liberal opposition to the leadership's milquetoast supplemental. Way to be, guys!]

Update: 171-255 on the McGovern bill (which is quite a few more yeas than I would have expected); 221-205 on the supplemental (which, of course, will be inexplicably vetoed).