SD89,
I think the point is about fighter capability/performance.
The F-35 will be the single platform in many airforces and is being sold on the premise that it will dominate in air-air for the next few decades.
The majority of aircraft you mention are fighter bombers with little or no air-air capability. Harrier, A-7 and Tornado. Yes the F-104 was a failed fighter and found a niche as a low level high speed fighter bomber.
The Super Hornet is underwhelming at air- air (partially like the F-35) it relies on a cutting edge sensors to give it advantage. I'm sure the USN would have loved something much better but ended up taking what they could. Like F-35 how capable the F-18F will look in a couple of decades will be interesting.
I'd argue that the F4 was the only aircraft on your list that was dominant at air-air when it entered service. I think the lack of gun and unsuitability for low-level subsonic turning fights is a bit of a red herring - it could outperform the Mig 21 and certainly enter and leave a fight at its own choosing.
I think the F4's performance excess (over it rivals and contemporaries) is largely the factor that has ensured it longevity as a fighter.
I can think of no other fighter that has been successful and did not have a performance margin over its rivals. Will the F-35 buck that trend?