Here's a bit of a rant from my experiences on a search committee this year:
1) Directed @ interviewees: Take 5 minutes and look up the SPECIFIC NSF/DOD/DOE/NIH program that you think might be interested in funding your research. It's really easy, but I'm surprised by how many people haven't given any thought to programs, solicitations, etc. Also, I've found that candidates who have put the time into creating an extensive, line-item budgets are usually ranked higher than those with nebulous budgets. My school doesn't offer a million dollars in startup, so we have to see if a) you can get a research program going using what you're given and b) have you really considered the details of setting up a lab. If you get the job, that line-item budget then becomes a supply list and you'll be glad that you put the time in up front.
2) Directed @ my faculty peers: You've got to stop assuming that every candidate should be walking into an interview with a Nobel-worthy set of ideas that are going to change science forever. How many of us are actually working on one of the projects that we proposed during our interviews after 3-5 years? The straw poll that I took in our department was about 10%, meaning that most research doesn't work and eventually evolves into something different (and perhaps more interesting). Give these candidates a break and try to look for a track record of perseverance and initiative.
3) Directed @ the 95% who didn't get an interview: I know it sucks that we didn't call you, but that's on us. There's a lot more that goes into consideration of an applicant besides CV, research plan, and letters of recommendation. We do take cover letters and personal statements seriously. We've passed on candidates with 50+ publications and interviewed others with 3, based solely on the fit with existing departmental needs. Getting an academic job is the biggest crap shoot out there, so don't take it personally if you don't get a call back. There are no "ringers" in this business anymore.
My advice to those of you looking primarily to teach at the college level would be to dump your research postdoc and start hitting the lecturer/adjunct/visiting professor circuit. A lot of colleges with a teaching emphasis place a higher premium on your teaching credentials, as opposed to years as a postdoc. There's a reason why faculty at research schools who are denied tenure often move to teaching schools--they have extensive relevant experience and are often a great value.The amount of debate around the path from "visiting professor" or "teaching postdoc" to "tenure-track assistant professor at a PUI" is fascinating to me.