Dem candidates though history -- How do Kerry and Edwards stack up? [View All]

[Skinner]

I was just having a discussion with EarlG about this issue, and I'm kinda curious what you all think.

Many people seem to think that John Kerry and John Edwards are insufficiently progressive to deserve their vote in the General Election. That, of course, is a decision that only you can make. But which Democratic presidential candidates, in your opinion, were sufficiently progressive?

Below is a list of all the Democratic presidential nominees of the last sixty years, plus Kerry and Edwards. (I chose not to include Kucinich and Sharpton, because they are unlikely to get the nomination.)

How do John Kerry and John Edwards stack up against the Democratic standard-bearers of years past? In your opinion, are they more or less "progressive"? Is it even possible to make the comparision, given the fact that the country has changed so much in the last sixty years? If you were voting in those years, which candidates would you have voted for, and which would not have been sufficiently progressive to earn your vote? Explain your position, if possible.

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT (1932, 1936, 1940, 1944)
HARRY S. TRUMAN (1948)
ADLAI E. STEVENSON (1952, 1956)
JOHN F. KENNEDY (1960)
LYNDON B. JOHNSON (1964)
HUBERT H. HUMPHREY (1968)
GEORGE MCGOVERN (1972)
JIMMY CARTER (1976, 1980)
WALTER F. MONDALE (1984)
MICHAEL DUKAKIS (1988)
BILL CLINTON (1992, 1996)
AL GORE (2000)
JOHN KERRY (2004)
JOHN EDWARDS (2004)

EDIT: Changed thread title to emphasize the question I'm actually most interested in.