As Senator Clinton launched her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, her campaign slogan was "Let the Conversation Begin." Then she went to "Big Challenges, Real Solutions: Time to Pick a President." At one point, it was "Renewing the Promise of America." Then, she was "In to Win." Finally, she settled on "Working for Change, Working for You."

    In the weeks leading up to the end of the Democratic primary process, it became clearer and clearer Senator Clinton would not be able to amass the committed or super delegates needed to secure her party's nomination. Even though she was mathematically unable to secure her party's nomination, she was not willing to step aside, admit defeat and begin the healing process within the Democratic Party? She had plenty of time to prepare herself and her supporters for the inevitable. Contrary to her campaign slogan, she was not really working for "you" the American people, she was working for Hillary.

    On May 23, 2008, CNN reported several close friends and supporters of Senator Clinton said that they were seeking a "graceful exit strategy" for Clinton from the race for the Democratic nomination, possibly as part of a joint ticket for the White House. Well, Senator Clinton, in my opinion, the best strategy for a graceful exit is to just exit gracefully.

    If this was really about "you" the American people and not all about Hillary, in her New York speech on June 3, she would have looked her supporters in the eye, acknowledged they fought the good fight, gave it the "old college try," but were not successful. She should have given Senator Obama his moment, relished with him in the historic moment and graciously acknowledged defeat. She would then have been able to stand with her head held high and call for her supporters to join with her and support the presumptive Democratic nominee, Senator Barack Obama. There in lies her "graceful exit."

    Instead, her close friends and supporters have developed three scenarios they believe will influence whether or how the two teams merge. The first scenario is if Senator Obama ignores Senator Clinton and her supporters and makes the vice presidential offer to someone else. According to CNN, one insider said, "This would be a total dismissal of her and totally unacceptable."

    The problem with this logic is it implies that Senator Clinton is entitled to being offered the vice presidential place on the ticket, and she is not. It also implies that the loser gets to dictate the terms of the loss. Lest we forget, "to the victor go the spoils."

    According to The Associated Press, Senator Clinton told colleagues she would consider joining Barack Obama as his running mate, and advisers said she was withholding a formal departure from the race partly to use her remaining leverage to press for a spot on the ticket. How can she consider an option that has not yet been presented?

    The second scenario they foresaw was for Senator Obama to publicly offer Senator Clinton the vice presidential spot, with the understanding that she would turn it down. But several Clinton friends say, "the problem is, the two sides do not trust each other" to follow through on this.

    Why would Senator Obama put himself in that precarious position? What does he gain? Again, implicit in this logic is a sense of entitlement and mainstream media is playing right along with it. Very few if any of the pundits and commentators are calling this crazy. Jeffrey Toobin is one of the few who honestly called this "deranged narcissism".

    According to CNN, the third scenario they envisioned would be trying to get both the candidates to sit down face to face and work out an agreement suitable to both parties. Some Clinton insiders said that some points to consider would be how to help pay off the Clinton campaign debt - roughly $30 million - or whether he would offer support for a possible Clinton effort to become Senate majority leader.

    Of the three scenarios proposed, the third one makes the most sense, almost. By the Obama campaign and the DNC agreeing to help pay off the Clinton campaign debt they could buy her allegiance. They could tie the payment to the second scenario by offering Senator Clinton the VP slot, if she does not reject it, she does not get paid. But again, why would Senator Obama allow himself to be compromised in this manner?

    The discussion of Senator Clinton being made Senate majority leader would involve the current Senator majority leader, Harry Reid, stepping aside. Why would Senator Reid allow himself to be compromised in that manner?

    Here's a major part of the problem: Senator Clinton and her advisers, such as Terry McAuliffe and Mark Penn, and too many of her supporters and friends became too comfortable too early. They believed all of their own press clippings from late in 2007 about Senator Clinton's insurmountable $35 million war chest, her committed super delegates, and the Clinton cachet. She was running as an incumbent for an office she did not hold.

    Here they are in June 2008, without the delegates to secure the nomination, and they cannot accept the fact they were out-strategized, out-organized, and out-fundraised. Penn, McAuliffe, and other strategists were figuring that the nomination would be locked up in early February, and they ran a general election campaign during the primary process. They focused on the larger states with the most delegates and ignored the causes. Senator Obama, on the other hand, used "Chicago style" precinct by precinct politics and contested every contest, every vote and every voter.

    Senator Clinton is quoted as saying, "A lot of people are asking, 'What does Hillary want?' ... "I want what I have always fought for: I want the nearly 18 million people who voted for me to be respected and heard." Really?

    Of all of the issues and scenario's proposed, not one of them involves policy. If Senator Clinton were leveraging her exit to compel Senator Obama to accept her position on health care, social security reform, an Iraq exit strategy, or some other important public policy position, then we could believe she is fighting for her people to be heard. We could believe it's about "you" the American people. None of that appears to be at play here. It all seems to be about Hillary and allowing her to save face.

    The "grace" in graceful is not something others give you; it is something that you earn. Grace is earned through humility, not from a sense of entitlement. The longer Senator Clinton tries to make her graceful exit the obligation of others, the more difficult it will become to exit gracefully.