Chris Wilson's blog post at Slate saying that Obama should drop out read like something Clinton herself would say (in fact,if I were more cynical, I'd think he was hired by the Clintons). "You've got me beat, but I'm willing to wreck the party, so you should quit to prevent it". What kind of logic is that? Imagine Hitler in 1945 saying "you've beaten me, but I'm going never going to surrender, so to prevent more bloodshed you should surrender to me".
The line that shoots down the whole premise is "His followers will be furious". They would be so furious that they would never trust him again, and they wouldn't be the only ones. If you were a Senator, would you agree to partner with him on any remotely controversial legislation? I'd bet he'd have a tough time getting re-elected to the Senate. The opposing campaign slogan would be simple: "He quit on you before."
Saying it was for the good of the party would mean nothing. The party machine was behind Clinton from the beginning; people who supported Obama did so to oppose the party. Those people would see him as another party hack, and would never support him for anything.
Wilson is correct that the Democratic Party would be wrecked, but no one would trust Obama to fix it.