I just am not seeing the evidence at this point that the DNC has any intention of seating MI's and FL's delegates simply because Hillary Clinton wants them to. In the event that she does better than expected in the remaining primaries and the two of them wind up in a dead heat, then I think most likely the DNC will either try to convince MI's and FL's Democratic parties to hold a caucus "redo" (a second primary isn't going to happen)--as the DNC recommended from the beginning--or else perhaps agree to seat their delegates on the condition that they be freed to vote for either candidate. I think the majority of the superdelegates will vote for whomever leads in the popular vote.
I do think it's regrettable that the DNC imposed such a harsh penalty on MI and FL for having bumped their primaries to begin with. I also think it's regrettable that all the Democratic candidates except Gravel signed the 'four-state pledge' not to "campaign or participate" in MI and FL in the first place, and that Obama, Richardson, Biden and Edwards made a last-minute decision a month later to interpret that to mean they should withdraw from the ballot in MI as well (withdrawal from FL was not possible). Most of all, it's regrettable that MI's and FL's voters got screwed over by the Democrats because their state legislatures rebelled against the national parties' calendar (and a caucus "redo" won't fix that, since caucuses mean much lower voter turnout). But those are all facts on the ground at this point, and the most reasonable way forward would seem to be for the DNC to stick to its guns.
While the situation is certainly a source of some strain within the Democratic Party at this point, I still don't see this as being analogous to the "fracturing" within the Republican Party BVS was referring to (although that, too, can and does get blown out of proportion, IMO). In that case it seems pretty clear to me that the intense distaste for McCain from some (Republican) quarters isn't so much about him in particular as it is about underlying tensions over ideology--social values, immigration, GWOT management, taxes etc.--that have been building up for awhile. By contrast, with the dueling supporters of Obama vs. Hillary, it seems to me to have very little to do with broader, underlying ideological ruptures, and everything to do with them in particular...who they're respectively perceived to be both as personalities, and as horses to bet on for a Democratic victory in November.