There are several reasons that nullify the "but Hillary agreed" position.
The first argument against the "But Hillary Agreed" position is, Barack Obama was losing in both Florida and Michigan and had nothing to gain by not agreeing to the DNC proposal. This is very important to note because all everyone wants to do is focus on what Hillary said or did.
Barack Obama seems to get too much credit for doing things that involved nothing more than political expediency. Barack Obama's "no" vote for the war in Iraq had more to do with mirroring the position other candidates campaigning for the Senate seat Barack would eventually win had already publicly taken. Barack Obama had NOTHING TO LOSE (other than delegates to Hillary Clinton if he voted no) by voting to sanction Florida and Michigan, so why does he get so much credit?
Hillary Clinton did have something to lose by saying no to the "agreement" to not count Florida and Michigan. Hillary Clinton would have been made to look greedy and afraid by the biased media that had already coagulated around Barack Obama. "Why is Hillary afraid to lose Florida and Michigan?" the media would ask. Barack Obama would have called not agreeing to not count Florida and Michigan more "old school politics", sticking to the same old Washington style politics even when a wrong has been committed.
To argue "but Hillary agreed" as a reason to not count Florida and Michigan should then mean that the votes from those two states MUST NEVER EVER EVER COUNT in this election cycle. If the Florida and Michigan votes are only made to count when they favor Barack Obama, as in putting Barack over the top in the delegate race, then that will mean Hillary Clinton was twice penalized after going along with the DNC committee every step of the way. Hillary Clinton has already received a several month penalty because the Florida and Michigan delegates have not been counted. A penalty HAS ALREADY OCCURRED. This is a fact that seems to be obscured by the media.
There are more reasons. If the situation had been reversed, and Barack Obama had won the states of Florida and Michigan and needed those delegate votes to win or stay in the race, Hillary Clinton would have been portrayed as not being able to win on a fair, 50 state landscape, but in typical old school style of politicking, had shortened the goal posts to ensure victory.
"What about Michigan, Barack Obama didn't even have his name on the ballot, how can it be fair to count Michigan?"
Isn't it kind of stupid to take your name off of a ballot if you're one of the two favored candidates? If Hillary Clinton had taken her name off of the Michigan Ballot and Barack Obama had not, the media would have had a field day making fun of her and her naivete. The Barack Obama people would have flung hyperbole so far and wide it wouldn't matter where the goal posts were. "Of course she took her name off the ballot, she was going to lose!" they would have chortled. Another rant I am sure we would have heard would be, "I can't see how someone naive enough to take their name off of the Michigan ballot can run our country".
Shouldn't Barack Obama have asked Hillary Clinton to also take her name off of the ballot as well, and if Hillary said no, then he does so at his own risk. Clearly Barack Obama made a huge mistake and the media has not once questioned his judgement in making such a colossal blunder. Barack Obama ERRED in taking his name off of the Michigan Ballot, but the biased media is SOOOO biased nobody is confident enough to state the truth.
Lets say it now for the first time, by not getting Hillary Clinton to also agree to take her name off of the Michigan Ballot, Barack Obama acted foolishly and impulsively in a manner I would not expect from a presidential candidate. It follows a pattern of behavior that Hillary Clinton has already pointed out several months ago, a earnestness to move to quickly and idealistically without having demonstrating enough caution.
As if all the above is not enough, did you know that North Carolina was given 28 extra bonus delegates to NOT move their election contest forward! A pro Obama state gets 28 extra delegates to not move their contest forward, meanwhile two pro Hillary states don't get offered any extra delegates for not moving their election date, and instead get penalized and denied their right to count. That doesn't sound very fair, does it? I expect fairness from the democratic party if they want my vote.
Denying Hillary Clinton her Florida win is like denying Barrack Obama his Illinois win. The demographics in Florida heavily favor Hillary Clinton no matter when the contest would have been held. Since Florida has already been suspended for this long and Hillary Clinton was denied fair access to a state she would have won, giving her a Florida Win immediately would be the fair and proper thing to do.