Doesn't Clinton need the FL, MI dooevers?

Pardon me if this has been written about. And also upfront - I am as ardent an Obama supporter as anyone here.

Also because this was misunderstood, I am rewriting the beginning.

Irrespective of the campaigns official position, might Obama actually be best served by having no MI and FL do-overs, whereas HRC desperately needs them?

This might seem counterintuitive, but I think I see the beginnings of a strategy.

Continued below...

For HRC to win, she needs to have a strong end-game - win PA, then FL and MI (obviously Obama has wins as well).

Winning those three states would of course buttress her claim to have the popular majority and the momentum.

Might Obama prefer to deny her those victories, go in with some compromise on the seating of FL and MI ((or do what the GOP did, and cut their delegations in half?)

Any thoughts on the wisdom of this as a strategy? And how it might affect the delegate totals? (Even if HRC won new FL and MI primaries, she would not overtake the committed delegate total.)