It's a given that Tennessee is a Red State and that Harold Ford Jr.'s 48% of the vote total was a surprisingly strong run.

But let's look at what's really happening in Tennessee and see just how strongly Ford ran.

Tennessee is not as Red a state as you might think. Tennessee has nine US Congressional Districts - five are held by Democrats. Tennessee's Democratic governor just won his second term. The state House is held by a Democratic majority. The state Senate is controlled by the Republicans 17/16. GOP dominance in the US Senate is the aberration, not the norm.

Harold Ford Jr. ran against a relatively weak Republican opponent, compared to Lamar Alexander, who was elected to the Senate in 2002. Corker was the Republican nominee by virtue of a split in the conservative vote in the Republican primary between Ed Bryant and Van Hilleary. He was mayor of Chattanooga - Tennessee's 4th-largest city. Before the campaign, he was relatively unknown outside of southeast Tennessee.

Harold Ford Jr. comes from a prominent family of Tennessee Democrats. He ran unopposed in the primary, and in the General election, was tagged as the candidate likely to be the difference between a Democratic or Republican Senate. Several years ago, he was one of People magazine's Most Beautiful People. He was the media's Golden Child, with a prominent Newsweek cover just days before the election. He also ran at a time of Republican scandals and low presidential approval, and as part of a Democratic tidal wave.

Yet he lost in a state that gave 69% of the vote to Democratic governor Phil Bredesen. Bredesen and Ford campaigned side-by-side, with almost identical social platforms. Yet Bredesen received almost 400,000 more votes than Ford.

How could Ford possibly not win?

If you look at the results from 2002, you see how badly Ford really did. Bob Clement, a virtually unknown candidate outside his own Congressional district, and a man with as much personality as a church organist(bless him), ran against the Tennessee franchise of former governor Lamar! Alexander. The only thing Clement had going for him were his solid Democratic credentials - he was a faithful Party man, and the 2002 Senate race was his reward. 2002 was at the very height of Bush's popularity and Republican power. Clement's campaign ran almost completely below the radar because, frankly, the Democratic party didn't really expect him to win. Remember, this was before Dean's 50-state strategy.

Yet in 2002, just before the Iraq War, with Bush riding the wave of popularity and Republicans in complete control of the agenda, Bob Clement grabbed 44% of the vote!

That's just four percentage points fewer than Ford's 48% in 2006!

Harold Ford Jr. was a significantly stronger candidate that Bob Clement. Bob Corker is a significantly weaker candidate than Lamar Alexander. Ford had the advantage of Democratic momentum, while Clement was trying to get elected during the Golden Days of Republican power.

Yet Ford only managed to pick up 150,000 votes, 4 percentage points, over Clement's lost-before-it-began 2002 campaign total, when the Democrats were being labelled in the media as a permanent minority.

I don't call that a surprisingly strong campaign. I call it surprisingly inept. Ford should have buried Corker.

The question is, why didn't he?