By James Caldwell, Torch assistant editor

Former WWE CEO Linda McMahon put on her best happy face last night conceding defeat to Richard Blumenthal in the U.S. Senate race in Connecticut, but $40+ million and 14 months later, this was a lost campaign at Month One.

Way back in September 2009 when McMahon announced her Senate candidacy, questions arose on her qualifications. Her only qualification was running the business side of WWE for over 25 years. With that being her only qualification, questions on WWE's shady history would arise and arise and arise unless she nipped those questions in the bud.

She did not. Her campaign sure did not. Instead, her hired help - the most expensive campaign money can buy - did Linda in by continuing to enable her eye-poppingly defiant responses to questions on WWE's history.

McMahon played the Wellness card, but we all know about WWE looking the other way on wrestler health issues that helped her make the campaign-funding fortune. McMahon played the PG card, but we all know about WWE's historical TV program that helped her make the campaign-funding fortune.

Instead of showing some gratitude for the wrestlers who broke their bodies in WWE and died to help provide the "money she earned," McMahon wrote off the likes of Lance Cade with callous comments like she "only met him once or twice."

Instead of acknowledging WWE TV programming moments that were in poor taste, she hid behind WWE's warped interpretation of protections provided by the First Amendment.

What if McMahon openly acknowledged concerns from the get-go? McMahon and her campaign couldn't have been that naive to believe $40 million could create a big enough tarp to cover WWE's history? And that no one would care about her WWE background despite that being her only qualification to run for Senate?

What if McMahon showed some human compassion and acknowledged errors in judgment as WWE CEO, but that she learned from those errors; that she pushed for PG-TV programming and an expanded Wellness Policy to ensure the alarmingly high rate of wrestler deaths stemming from and during the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s would be curtailed going forward?

Would the result have been different on Tuesday night? We'll never know. But, exit polling indicates four out of every ten voters were negatively affected by McMahon's WWE background.

That's a significant percentage. What kind of tone would the last 13 months of campaigning had if McMahon came out Month One to make these acknowledgments rather than trying to play her defiant and defensive cards for 14 months?

Would reporters have asked questions on McMahon's stance on the so-called "real issues," like jobs, the economy, and her social views? If she answered the "WWE questions" at the beginning, would the spotlight not be on WWE right now with potential investigations looming?

Following McMahon's loss, the spotlight shifts to WWE with an entirely new audience and powerful individuals aware of wrestler health concerns, WWE's independent contractor classification, the lack of an off-season, drug addiction exacerbated by the schedule, etc.

What would the story be on November 3, 2010 if McMahon - and WWE - took a proactive approach for once rather than acting defiant and defensive as part of a reactionary mentality?

Last night's race could have been closer, but perhaps the result would have stayed the same. Richard Blumenthal was a resillient candidate and he's well-liked in Connecticut, which is a traditional Democratic state.

McMahon and her campaign never really gave her a chance by not addressing the "WWE issues" at the outset. Remorse before the need to show remorse can go a long way. Reporters and powerful individuals may have cut her a break. Instead, more defiance led to more questions. More defensiveness led to more scrutiny.

It was a poorly run campaign. If I were McMahon, I would be asking for a refund, but the thing is this race was straight from the WWE Playbook of deny, deny, deny until people lose interest and can't hold their noses any longer having to examine anything related to pro wrestling.

Now, will this failed campaign - in the sense of wins and losses - expose WWE to formal scrutiny? The "Stand Up for WWE" campaign isn't dying down today, as this goes beyond McMahon's campaign.

Will Richard Blumenthal follow up on his suggestion that he would recommend an investigation of WWE's business practices if elected Senator?

What's next for WWE?

What could have been for McMahon?

In the weeks and months and years to come, how will WWE be affected by this campaign? Will anything change? Will we be looking at a mandatory off-season in 2011 or 2012, or ever?

The law of unintended consequences opened up WWE's story for the world to see. For the health of the wrestlers and the overall wrestling business, it could be a good thing.

The ultimate irony is that even a pie-sized slice of $40+ million campaign fund could have improved the health of the wrestling industry well-before this election and directly cut off the "WWE questions" before they even could have been asked.

From WWE and Linda McMahon's perspective, all of this could have been avoided. But, WWE's classic hubris got in the way. Oh, what could have been.

We suggest these recent related articles...

CALDWELL'S WWE "NXT: HOUSTON" LIVE RESULTS 9/17: Complete "virtual-time" coverage of Balor, Joe, Bayley, more from debut show in Texas

CALDWELL'S LIVE REPORT - 7/12 Lone Star in Houston, Tex.: Alberto El Patron no-shows, Dreamer vs. Hoyt new main event; plus Duggan, Snitsky, Cabana vs. Mahal, Joey Ryan, Rowe vs. Hernandez, Ivellise, Catrina, Houston Carson, one title change, more

CALDWELL: A Top 10 for 10 Years - Hall of Fame, George, Sweet Tea, Studio B, Duke, Three-Pack, and you!