It's hardly news that crossovers make titles suck, but I do wonder what it says that we're getting to the point where the writers are willing and able to say that in public.
As for this month's issue itself... totally meh - I'm so sick of Dinah being childish, I can't tell you - but I did think the leadership conversation here was pretty interesting. Dead right on Batman, half-right on Superman, I think - Clark's problem isn't so much that he wants to protect everybody, as that he simply doesn't think to include anybody else in the day-saving. He's just not a collaborative worker, period. Which he comes by honestly, because how often in his life are other people actually helpful compared to them being in the way? Even his job is an individualistic one.
The solution, of course, is Diana or J'onn, but you can't bring up Diana because there's no good non-meta reason that she isn't in charge to dismiss her with, and J'onn's stuck in limbo until the Darkest Night nonsense is over. I still maintain that, while John's right about the fact that Dinah can be a better leader than Bruce or Clark, she's not suited to it. You've gotta be an ass sometimes to be in charge, you've gotta be willing to fight your friends and make peace with people who's heads you want to conk together and assert yourself over people you care about and respect. Particularly in the League, which, yes, is a bunch of alphas. And while Dinah does have that ability, her choices tend to avoid that situation - look at the dynamic she has with Babs and Ollie. Being the boss, being the person who gets backtalked and who can't do her own thing because she's responsible for the team, it wears on her. And the League are jerks for asking it of her, just as much as they'd be jerks for asking Clark to work side-by-side with Luthor on some long-term alliance or asking Kimiyo to give up her research and fight crime full-time.