Does anyone else think #5 is in response to the overwhelming backlash against not being able to play an evil cleric in 4e?
I think it's more a response to the historical "sameness" that the cleric class has had over the editions. Basic and 1e clerics pretty much had the same spells, weapons and armor, regardless of deity. 2e had the most variety, with specialty priests given as an option alongside the "standard" cleric. 3e gave clerics different domains and allowed for more customization through feats, but all clerics still had access to a common and very extensive spell list. 4e clerics started off pretty much generic again (although individual clerics could be quite different by virtue of selecting different powers). With the release of Divine Power, there was some scope for more distinctiveness through selecting domain feats, but (IMO) the clerics of different gods became truly distinctive only after the release of the Essentials warpriest.
In any case, you could play an evil cleric in 4e if you wanted to, although it might not look very different from a non-evil cleric. Divine Power even had feats for "darker" domains such as Darkness, Death, Destruction, Madness, Poison, Strife, Torment, Tyranny and Undeath.
As for the design goals, I would say that #2 (The Cleric Is a Divine Spellcaster) is the most important, followed by #5 (Clerics Reflect the Gods). Everything else should just be starting points and customizable by the player. It should be possible to make a cleric who is not a healer or an armored warrior and who smites and blasts his enemies with raw, direct, unsubtle displays of divine power. (
Flame strike!
Earthquake!
Insect plague!
Astral storm!
Mass harm!
Slay living!)