That exactly my point, the original comment points her out as the only or the main voice. That is just not true, it paints a skewed picture. She was either joining the choir of voices or preaching to it.
The goal of that characterisation is to demonize this one person into the source of this action. (ironically often combined with an irrational faceless "the left" to dehumanize further)
We can talk about what the influence is of a person in that position and whether it's ethical to join in such a call but that is a completely different can of worms and not what I was commenting on.
Stacking "this person did it" with "this person abused their power" is irresponsible without examining each statement.
In my country, even if the party agrees, usually who makes the comments more visibly (usually on TV) gets the 'blame' or ire of people. This is pretty normal and part of their duties as government representatives (otherwise they don't go to the media when they don't want the scrutiny of their words)
edit: Suppose the entire democrats are for doing something, but she tweets to her millions of followers about it, which creates social pressure from her followers for a company to do something, even if the entire democratic wing agrees, she as the 'inciter' shouldn't she also get the brunt of the ire? Or it is only for the good things you get credit (AOC defends better minimum wage, or student debt cancelation) but the bad ones no (democrats want to shut down parlour) ?
This is something I saw on US and European news. If 'America' did something 'bad', headlines would say 'Trump did this', if it was 'good', headlines would say 'America did this'. You can see this today, now a bit reversed, on cnn politics website. There are two positive headlines, both mention Harris and Biden by name, while the negative uses White House.