Criticism of Tonnu's article

This was a decent post. However, there was one thing that bothered me.
She said the other Democratic candidates "picked on" Clinton. While this might be true, I can hardly fault them for it. Clinton is the front-runner and it would be foolish to deny that. By attacking her, they are doing the same thing as negative campaign ads. While the debate would have likely been better if candidates had focused on the issues more than attacking the leader, they're just doing whatever will help them win. Politics is basically a competition anyway. She even said that Bill Richardson came to Clinton's aid and said that he heard a "holier-than-thou attitude" at the debate; however, I have a hard time believing that he actually cared that rather than Clinton's ideas being attacked she was being attacked as a person. He was just playing the role of the "good guy" because he knew that would make him look better as a candidate.
She didn't cite very good examples of "ganging up" either. Her selections from Obama and Edwards don't even mention Clinton by name and sound more like their opinion of the terms of the debate, and any good debater will single out the trait the winner will have and then build their argument around that. I could understand her complaint if they implied misogyny or mentioned Clinton by name, but they did not.
Good job on catching the moderator bias. Debate moderators should be nothing but objective, and any favoritism (or in this case anti-favoritism) is inexcusable.
Source: An Attack on Clinton