Why did Kerry pick Edwards relatively early?

[phk]

I think he picked him in like July if I recall correctly, which is pretty early, at least with respect to other VP picks.

Why?

[Bo]

Maybe because he wanted to remove the suspense in an attempt to get an immediate boost in the polls. I think Kerry should have picked a woman, though. It might have delivered him OH by energizing the female vote.

[King]

The Democratic Convention in 2004 was in July.  If he didn't pick one then, he wouldn't have had a running mate at the convention.

[Bo]

The Democratic Convention in 2004 was in July.  If he didn't pick one then, he wouldn't have had a running mate at the convention.

He could have picked right before the convention and announced it right at the convention, like Bush Sr. did in 1988.

[King]

The Democratic Convention in 2004 was in July.  If he didn't pick one then, he wouldn't have had a running mate at the convention.

He could have picked right before the convention and announced it right at the convention, like Bush Sr. did in 1988.

He still would've had to pick him in July instead of the usual August. 

It was just another one of the many mistakes by Terry McAuliffe and the DNC that doomed Kerry

[Sasquatch]

Kerry picked Edwards like a week before the convention.

[Derek]

Yea I don't remember him picking Edwards that much earlier than other candidates. Maybe he just couldn't resist Edwards' looks and charm lol.  What a crook Edwards turned out to be and I'm happy it happened to him for being such a hypocrite.  That was Kerry's best pick for a VP and they were good friends in the primaries that year.

[Nym90]

It was about three weeks before the convention, and was thus a bit earlier than the norm, which has been less than a week before the convention, sometimes not even until the first or second day of the convention.

The pros of picking a running mate early when running against an incumbent President in particular is avoiding being "outnumbered" and having someone else to assist with fundraising and campaigning. The downside is giving the opposition more time to attack and research the VP choice--and of course, waiting longer has the additional advantage of getting a better feel for what help you need and where in the campaign.

Since Edwards had been pretty well vetted throughout the Presidential campaign--remember that he didn't meet Rielle Hunter until 2006--Kerry likely figured that the pros outweighed the cons.

[Mr. Morden]

I think the thinking was also that it would give him two separate bumps in the polls: Once for his VP unveiling, and then again for the convention.  But, IIRC, that didn't work, as he didn't get any noticeable bump from the convention.

[OC]

It was obviously the wrong pick, it gave Kerry just like Lieberman gave Gore a temporary bounce, but once again Bob Graham someone that would have beaten Cheney in the debate and go toe to toe with should have been picked. Edwards just reminded people the lack of nat'l security experience he had.

[Senator Kalwejt]

It was obviously the wrong pick, it gave Kerry just like Lieberman gave Gore a temporary bounce, but once again Bob Graham someone that would have beaten Cheney in the debate and go toe to toe with should have been picked. Edwards just reminded people the lack of nat'l security experience he had.

Also, Graham would probably be able to deliver a swing state of Florida, considering his great popularity down there. Edwards did deliver absolutely nothing to the ticket.

[sg0508]

While not overly popular in NC at the time, Edwards did have some national popularity and gave Kerry some problems in the primary.  Plus, Kerry needed someone to balance out the "MA liberal" label and figured Edwards was a good choice from down south. 

The irony is, Edwards made some comments after the election that Kerry ran a very poor "map" campaign and allowed Bush way too much offensive time on the map, attacking Kerry in bluish states (MN, MI, PA, etc) rather than battling Bush in his tight states. In addition, Edwards was also pissed (as was Mark Warner) that Kerry gave up in VA, which was winnable for the democrats in 2004.

[HockeyDude]

While not overly popular in NC at the time, Edwards did have some national popularity and gave Kerry some problems in the primary.  Plus, Kerry needed someone to balance out the "MA liberal" label and figured Edwards was a good choice from down south. 

The irony is, Edwards made some comments after the election that Kerry ran a very poor "map" campaign and allowed Bush way too much offensive time on the map, attacking Kerry in bluish states (MN, MI, PA, etc) rather than battling Bush in his tight states. In addition, Edwards was also pissed (as was Mark Warner) that Kerry gave up in VA, which was winnable for the democrats in 2004.

I'm not sure the Kerry campaign could have done a worse job in VA and WV in 2004.  They were both there for him, and the WAY which he showed his political incompetence was a huge factor in the MOV for Bush in both states. 

[Solopop]

He should've picked Clinton to run with him.

[shua]

He should've picked Clinton to run with him.

Nah, too soon after the 90s.
"Why did Kerry pick Edwards" is a good question. The answer is that he was young and pretty and folksy, and he had cute kids. Other than that, he was a complete lightweight saying things like (paraphrasing) "the government should start infiltrating terrorist groups to spy on them" as if this was the most brilliant original idea ever, or "these people in wheelchairs will get up and walk again because of stem cells if we win."

[JRP1994]

Also, he probably wanted Edwards to help attack Bush-Cheney. It was 1:2 before, with Edwards it would be 2:2

[OC]

Axelrod was in charge of edwards campaign as well. After the reagan funeral, bush was in control and edwards newface. A bounce was received from edwards but not one from convention. Due to ridge terrror threats.