I read all of the above earlier in the year (I called the books: Atheist Update), and agree with most of your conclusions. I find it humorous that Dennett comes across as the least self-righteous... especially after having authored one of the most self-aggrandizing books of all time: Consciousness Explained. I didn't think Dawkins' offering the weakest; each has its own slant, which I think helps the broader effort by appealing to wider audiences (possibly).
After having read them, and also Sam Harris' two contributions to the same topic, I discovered this interesting article in The Nation :
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070625/aronson
Ronald Aronson spends a bit of time with each, and makes some good general points. His conclusions, however, are suspect. He outlines a call to arms of sorts to form a religious/secular alliance:
Finally, such an alliance could become one place where Dennett's goal of discussing religion openly and critically--as well as atheism and agnosticism--could begin to be realized. A number of questions might be explored: What, for example, is the common ground and what are the differences between believers and unbelievers? And--I save for last the touchiest question of all--shouldn't all Americans be instructed in the great religious and secular traditions, as well as their greatest books? After all, achieving literacy in both religion and secularism might allow us to discuss them more intelligently.
How do we agree that perhaps the authors have something good to say, and then come to the conclusion that compulsory education in all religions and books should be the solution?