Hillary Clinton’s whereabouts and proclivities, down to her hikes in the woods and dinners at Rao’s, have been a source of profound interest since her shocking electoral college loss in last November’s presidential election. (Clinton won the popular vote by nearly three million ballots.) Would she attend Donald Trump’s inauguration? Would she inexplicably run for mayor of New York? Was Chelsea moving in next door in order to start her own national political career from the family seat in Westchester County? Or would Clinton be jostling for influence over the future of the Democratic Party? And what exactly did it augur when Clinton tweeted "3-0" after a three-judge panel shot down Trump’s travel ban?

In an essay for Politico, published over the weekend, Matt Latimer, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush, persuasively articulates the case that Clinton’s political career may not be definitely over, as most presume. Latimer notes that Clinton’s decision not to re-open the Clinton Foundation, an organization rife with potential conflicts of interest, suggests that the former Senator and Secretary of State has not ruled out a run. He also points out that Clinton’s latest book deal would afford her the chance to travel around the country in an unofficial capacity, perhaps setting off a sort of trial balloon. (Her initial run for the Senate was presupposed by a famous “listening tour” around New York State.) Clinton has also been pretty active on social media, of course.

Perhaps most notably, Latimer, political wordsmith, claims that Clinton's concession speech sounded far from defeatist. “I know we have still not shattered that highest and hardest glass ceiling, but some day, someone will,” she said, “and hopefully sooner than we might think right now. Let us not grow weary in doing good, for in due season, we shall reap if we do not lose heart.” She concluded by reminding her supporters that the work was far from over: “So my friends, let us have faith in each other, let us not grow weary, let us not lose heart, for there are more seasons to come. And there is more work to do.”

Latimer's argument may seem to cherry-pick particular details. Clinton wasn't the recipient of favors from James Comey and Vladimir Putin, but her loss can also be ascribed to her wide-spread unpopularity and personal weaknesses as a candidate. But as the Democratic party stumbles to recover from not only Trump’s surprise victory, but its calamitous results in the House and Senate, a leadership void undeniably exists. As of this writing, the potential Democratic field for 2020 appears both wide open and largely uninspiring. And while Clinton would be 73 in 2020, Trump himself would be 74. Those who have watched the Clintons through four decades of public life are weary of ever counting them, or their ambition, out. As Latimer notes, politicians from Mitt Romney to Al Gore have struggled with resisting the urge to run one more time.

But the chance of a third defeat may be too cruel to bear for Clinton. In time, one suspects, she will re-emerge as a grand ambassador of her party—a person who did not have to break the glass ceiling, herself, but instead ensured that others could.

This post has been updated.