In the aftermath of last year's presidential race, Newsweek magazine suggested 'the Forbes campaign deserves little more than a footnote in the history of American politics'.
The words reflected the mood of most political pundits last November. If a multi-millionaire such as Malcolm 'Steve' Forbes could spend US$30 million (about HK$234 million) of his own cash and not come close to winning his party's nomination, why would anyone give him a chance four years later? Mr Forbes, publisher of the eponymous financial magazine and supply-side-economics guru par excellence, did indeed deserve a historical footnote at the very least - if only for injecting a splash of underdog colour into the greyest of Republican nomination battles.
But if everyone assumed he would stoically write off his $30 million loss and limp back to his New Jersey estate, they appear to have misjudged the man.
A well-connected member of a conservative Republican foundation in Washington dispelled my own doubts last week.
When I asked him who he thought was the likeliest Republican nominee for the 2000 presidential race, he hesitated only a couple of seconds before naming Mr Forbes.
Washington insiders often like to throw such fastballs in political discussions: their shock value tends to give whoever is listening the impression that the speaker must be gifted with that most prized of Washington possessions, inside knowledge.