I'm wondering why so many groups have trouble finding a cleric to adventure with. Is it still that bad of a class? I've played one 3e cleric so far, and found it quite fun to play. In fact, I haven't found a class that isn't fun to play in 3e.
If your group's anything like the ones I've played with recently, that shortage isn't due to any fault in the class itself. How fun clerics are to play depends heavily on the context of the setting and its religion(s)--even more so than for paladins or druids, one could argue. If you're going to play a cleric seriously, he needs to be more than a wizard with a holy symbol and bandages. And you can only get that extra dimension through how the cleric fits into the world--how he feels about the gods, how he feels about his fellow mortals, what made him become a cleric, what role and duties that status gives him in society, etc. Members of other classes can be just as spiritual and devout, but the cleric is *defined* by that link.
Some players aren't able or willing to take on that role-playing burden. Some need a cool GM or set of gods to play off of in order to enjoy the priestly path (or just prefer it, as I do). A rare few can throw themselves into the role with no problem whatsoever--even if the GM is only so-so and the available religions are pretty lame.
A friend of mine is about to start a new D&D campaign, and was briefly worried that he wouldn't have any divine spellcaster PCs. 3 of the 4 of us were currently playing clerics or druids in other games, so wanted to play something else (even the one player who *always* seems to play clerics or druids wanted a change). But the DM has since recruited a 5th player, who is perfectly happy to play a cleric; it just took him a while to choose from the DM's very eclectic list of gods (and he chose Mystra, so will be multiclassing to wizard ASAP).