It is interesting how the attempt to harmonize different biblical texts about the Messiah and Michael, which creates a new doctrine about Jesus being Michael the Archangel, ignores other texts such as Revelation 12 which distinguishes between Michael and the Messiah child, and Hebrews 1 which explicitly denies that the Son is an angel.
Those enthusiastically embracing the angel christology either ignore the significance of these scriptures (as have done thus far in this thread) or would need to explain them in a way that forces them into agreement with their preferred christology.
The simple truth is that the OT and NT present differing claims about the Messiah and any attempt to force them into agreement results in a new doctrine which does not correspond to anything that is actually written in the Bible (Narkissos made this point a while back). Embracing Daniel's suggestion that the Messianic king will be Michael results in a conflict with Hebrews. Accepting Hebrews at its word (or Colossians 1:15-19, for that matter) results in a conflict with Daniel as long as one identifies the promised Messianic king with Jesus.
And since Jude drew on 1 Enoch, especially in areas relating to angels (cf. v. 6), we would have to consider how the Son is unique in preeminence and essence (Hebrews 1:3) yet is a member of a class of angels (the archangels).