Jim Miller is one of my favorite bloggers. He has invented the Vilsack Rating to measure what each candidate has accomplished in public life. Here’s part of Miller’s explanation of Vilsack rating:

I will use the achievements of Iowa governor Tom Vilsack as my measuring stick. A candidate who has achievements equal to those of Vilsack will get a 1. A candidate who has accomplished half as much as Vilsack will get a .5. A candidate who has achieved twice as much as Vilsack will get a 2. And so on.

The achievements can be good or bad.

The Vilsack meter is mostly a joke. But not entirely. Someone should point out that some of these candidates have not accomplished much in their public lives. Since no one else is doing that, I’ll fill in, and the Vilsack meter seems like a good way to identify the candidates who just haven’t accomplished much.

John Edwards scores poorly with a meagre 0.1. Here’s part of how Miller assessed his score:

He has acquired a little executive experience, running something called the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina. The Center appears to have no significant accomplishments.

Let’s put this all together. Edwards did have some impact on the public during his legal career, probably making births more expensive and more dangerous. He did little during his six years in the Senate. He has no significant achievements since then.

Adding these achievments together, I would give Edwards a 0.1 score on the Vilsack meter. In other words, I believe that John Edwards has achieved one tenth as much, publicly, as Iowa governor Tom Vilsack. (But if I had a dubious case, I think I would like to have Edwards as my attorney.)

The NYT did a hit-piece on Edwards, while he was competing with Kerry for the 2004 nomination, that confirms his sleazy record as a trial lawyer exploiting cerebral palsy cases with junk science and channeling the victims.

I’m going to predict Obama and Hillary will also score poorly.