For the last few weeks, Clinton has sent her supporters out to demand over and over again that these two primaries have their delegates seated exactly as if those were real elections.
Never mind that Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, never mind that everyone agreed ahead of time that there would be no delegates awarded, the problem is that there is absolutely no chance that this is going to happen if the election is tight.
Clinton is a fighter. That's what people love about her. She'll fight for what she believes in and won't retreat in any battle. There definitely are times and fights where you need that. The problem, though, comes in when you can't turn that off.
Political fighting is a frustrating thing. It requires you to take principled stands in order to achieve short term goals, even if it means ignoring the different principled stands you took the month before (for a great example of that see how National Review's hatred of filibusters when the Republicans controlled the Senate flipped after 2006 to the point where they just refer to "the 60 vote requirement to win."). It's great for the pundits and fires up the adrenaline, but it frequently can lead to the point where you spend so much time fighting that you don't actually spend any time actually accomplishing anything.
While sometimes you have to fight (and fight hard) for what you want, that can't be your only technique. The lesson of the Bush years is that constant fighting for your goals can make some of the happen, but at a huge cost to both your party and the country as a whole. Political gains that are achieved by making 49% of the country think that it was forced upon them are the first ones to be changed.
Let's go back to MI/FL. If I were in charge of Clinton's campaign, I know what I would be pushing for - party paid revotes on the same day as Texas and Ohio. That would help her out in many ways. With four big states voting at once (all of which favor Clinton), it would be much harder for Obama to gain enough traction in them to move voters to him. She'd easily net another 30 or 40 delegates, maybe more if this caused TX or OH to stay with her. Moreover, it would be much harder for Obama to argue against this plan.
The two candidates agree on most of the issues. Where I see the difference is in technique. During the campaigns, Obama strikes me as the kind of guy who can make people think that they won while he gets what he wants. Clinton, on the other hand, fights very hard, but seems to get fewer victories and expends a lot more energy and political clout the ones she does manage. This, more than anything, is why I'm in Obama's camp.