If you get a chance, swing by a comic book store and pick up the five-part miniseries detailing her recent return from the dead and overthrow of a pantheon of whacked-out divinities. She's got it going on.

As for it being "a big month for pen-and-ink heroines" ... well, no. Over the last umpteen years, pen-and-ink heroines have kicking ass and taking names. Exhibit A: Runaways, headed by a teenaged goth witch and a space lesbian, backed up by a super-strong ten-year-old girl and a grouchy, brainy nerdette, and relegating the boys to boy-toy status. Exhibit B: Birds of Prey, which is the gold standard for girl-power in comics (They're smart! And massively skilled fighters! And devious!), and written by Gail "Women in Refrigerators" Simone. Exhibit C: the prominence of female heroines in books like Villians United, The Secret Six, Seven Soliders, and Marvel's Ultimates series. Exhibit D: The Luna Brothers' book last year, Ultra ...

I could go on. But really, this Broadside entry shows that there's a lot wrong with the way mainstream media covers comics as a medium and entertainment form -- starting with the fact that Wonder Woman is the only female comic character they can be bothered to know.

What is striking about the LW's original complaint is how shaky his reasons for going into reporting are. Aside from one throwaway line about how on a "good" day, he enjoys learning about new things, many of his motivations seem rooted in pure, self-centered ego: "I feel ... a little powerful" and "I'm nauseated by the thought that my work will appear under my name," for example.

And instead of going into reporting because he's got a passion for a specific topic (as many science, technology, arts and business reporters I know did), or because he's got the bug to tell people stories (as nearly all good reporters I know do), or because he genuinely believes that a free press is vital to our lives ... it's because he wants to "experience what it means to be human." This is a profoundly selfish reason to enter a field that has the potential to affect other people; perhaps his realization of this explains why he is chary of assuming any "exposure and responsibility."

Journalism is about conveying the story to others. If you're a good reporter, you're a conduit for the story. The stories you report can affect you, yes, but at the end of the day, you're dedicated to a purpose above and beyond your own self-actualization. You're driven by curiosity, the belief that transmitting true and accurate information serves a vital need in society, and a love of story-telling. The story should always be bigger than you are.

Done right, reporting DOES carry "exposure and responsibility" -- reporting on a new piece of technology can make or break a product line or company; reporting on a new scientific development can make or break someone's reputation or the public's perception of a field; reporting on a company can affect the livelihoods of countless people. There is no good reporting that's done in a consequence-free bubble. So long as you do your job right -- be scrupulously fair about including all the facts, put those facts into the fullest context possible, do your legwork, get good sources and figure out how they're trying to work you -- that's not your problem.

Being shy shouldn't even factor into it. I'm shy. I'm also a decent reporter -- because I know the story's never about me, it's about my topic and it's for my readers. And I love what I do. I love learning something new, I love passing on that tremendous thrill of discovery to readers, and I love directing attention toward previously-unexplored facets of the world we live in. Those kicks always propel me past any awkwardness -- and they can do it for anyone else who's in the field for the joy of seeing how the world works. Not how they work -- how the world works.

... because I grow tired of Joan Walsh's specious rhetoric.

Obama ran a better campaign. He deployed his ads more skillfully, rose to the challenges that arose, and refused to stoop to the divisive tactics of his chief challenger. For a nation that's spent eight years being sliced and diced into us-vs-them demographics, hearing the message that we're all in this together is a refreshing change.

Clinton ran a rotten campaign, rife with miscalculation and poor managerial decisions. She squandered a tremendous war chest and a presumptive-nominee status. Frankly, that reminds me of how GWB squandered a tremendous international goodwill and national sense of pride after 9.11. Both are missed opportunities that speak to profound leadership flaws. She's a fine senator and I hope she becomes the next great lioness of that institution, but she's not what this country needs right now.

Moreover, Clinton's campaign seems to have brought out the worse in her supporters, from Gerry Ferraro and Harriet Christian to the women who are threatening to put McCain in the oval office because they didn't get their way. Please tell me the feminist movement isn't so stupid and self-hating that they'd willingly roll back progress on dozens of women's issues because one female candidate was beaten in an election. I'd like to hope we feminists are better than that.

And these voters are why I'll be taking my Salon sub next year and supporting NARAL with it.