RALEIGH — As I write this, speculation is running rampant throughout the political world that Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry will announce his running mate this week, perhaps as early as Tuesday morning — and that the most likely selection is none other than North Carolina’s own one-term senator, John Edwards.

Regular readers of my “Daily Journal” known that I’ve long thought that Kerry-Edwards would be the most likely outcome of the 2004 presidential race. Some of my correspondents have offered some thoughtful comments or rebuttals to the points I’ve made about both men. Other correspondents have simply ridiculed the idea, or me for suggesting it, or John Edwards as ready and qualified for the national ticket.

So here’s a little refresher course on the political aspects of the case for Edwards (quite apart, naturally, from whether a Kerry-Edwards ticket would be a good choice for America):

* A fresh face. Edwards outperformed expectations during the presidential primary season in part because the punditry set up us as inexperienced and inadequate competition to long-established politicians such as Dick Gephardt, Bob Graham, and Joe Lieberman. But where’s the evidence that voters want career Washington politicians to be their national leaders? If you think about it, the last time Americans went that way was in the 1960s, in the case of Lyndon Johnson in 1964 (in the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination) and Richard Nixon in 1968. Both men were also running against experienced Washington pols, so voters didn’t have much of a choice in the matter (except for those choosing third-party candidate George Wallace).

George W. Bush spent as single term as Texas governor before his narrow win in 2000. Bill Clinton was a career politician, but not in Washington. George H.W. Bush had been vice president and served briefly in Congress, but had spent much of his career either in business or in appointed posts. Ronald Reagan was a two-term California governor. Jimmy Carter emerged from nowhere — actually Georgia, but I repeat myself — in 1976. Jack Kennedy served less than two terms in the U.S. Senate. Ike Eisenhower was a political neophyte.

Enough about Edwards’ lack of experience. It’s not true, comparatively, and its import to voters is at best unclear.

* The drawl. Democrats would like to make states in the peripheral South competitive in the 2004 election, at least so the Bush campaign feels compelled to spend money there. Florida already is. Several border states probably are, too. Edwards could possibly yank a few others, including North Carolina, into the “battleground state” category. He’s a good campaigner and speaks the language.

* The Senate. Realistically, vice-presidential picks don’t matter a whole lot in the national race. The old notion was that Veeps should at least bring their own state and offer geographical balance to a ticket. In practice, neither goal has been important to either party for decades, which is why folks like Cheney, Gore, Quayle, and Bush 41 got on the ticket.

What could very well matter is that John Edwards is the only Veep pick that arguably improves the Democrats’ chances of retaking the U.S. Senate. He’ll almost certainly boost Democratic turnout a bit here in NC, particularly among black voters, which will help Erskine Bowles in his tight contest with Richard Burr. By deploying Edwards to other Southern states with tight Senate races — his native South Carolina, for starters — Democrats can build some energy and raise some money.

I don’t know whether Kerry will do the expected and pick Edwards. I do know he should. If he doesn’t, a major part of the ensuing media blitz will consist of variations on this theme: “Why didn’t he pick John Edwards”?

Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation and publisher of Carolina Journal.