In all seriousness, my experience with clerics can be briefly summed up as, "I never played one before 4th Edition." Ironically, it was the first character I actually played as part of a two-man delve, run by a person that had never ran D&D before, and it was a shitload of fun. Being able to smash and blast things while giving my ally bonuses (but still be able to heal), was so much better than standing behind the fighter and keeping him propped up and letting him get all the glory; people in my games just never got as excited about rolling 8 hit points of healing as they did over critting for 29 damage (or instantly slaying a dragon with a single spell and botched saving throw).
On another note, apparently writing free articles talking about D&D's history--something he specifies in vain each time at the top of the column--is garnering Mearls forum hostility. That's not surprising as doing pretty much anything makes you fair game for internet rage, and while I can understand that you might not find them interesting remember that you are also not paying for it (nor is it eating up pages out of the admittedly leaner-looking Dragon or spartan Dungeon). What I find only slightly surprising is the claims that Mearls is going somewhere with this that we don't want to go, perhaps with a 5th Edition that will play more like 3rd and/or lack a cleric class--this is sadly a refreshing change of point-of-view from past columns where he allegedly attacked 4th Edition.
Personally I'm taking these columns as a D&D enthusiastic just, you know, talking about the game--even if it's about gaming history that some of us experienced first hand (most of my running time was in 3rd Edition, so I got the end of this particular lesson). Yeah he's a WotC employee, but that doesn't mean that he can't post shit on the site that doesn't have some sort of ulterior motive.