"? I find her statement pretty obvious and candid"

It's neither obvious nor candid if it is in fact misrepresentative.

To me it looks terrible. She was fired for doing something wrong and she's claiming that 'only she has the ability to do it well, the newcomers cannot' which is definitely problematic.

Given the details of what she was asked to do and did not do so ... I don't see the state acting in any way towards 'censoring' information, just a disagreement as to what and how information should be presented.

Trump is claiming that Flynn was 'unmasked' and that this was some kind of crime, when in fact Obama letting Trump know that Flynn is under investigation was exactly what we want him to do.

The state seems reasoned in their justification, I don't see how someone would be 'whisteblowing' here.

FYI the state also made the claim that this issue was persistent, it wasn't just this one thing, and that she made changes to the site without consulting with her team, or the epidemiologists supporting the initiative, which is not good.

It's hard to make a full conclusion but I don't think it looks very good for a whistleblowing case.

Unless she knows what the team will do in the future (is that predictable?) she is prejudging them in an unkind light.

There has a been a repeated pattern in Florida to hide and obfuscate data. The Governor's Office has been trying to paint a particular version of events since day one. Everything from putting pressure on the law firm representing the Miami Herald trying to get data, to preventing coroners in the state from publishing data. This is just one more item to add to the list.

In a situation where you're fired for refusing to carry out your boss's instructions, it's pretty reasonable to assume that your replacement will be selected, in part at least, on their willingness to do what you would not.

Having that opinion is very different than publicly calling them liars before they've even had a chance to step into the role. Whatever else we ultimately find out about this, it is clear on its face that this act was unprofessional (and to me, destroys her credibility).

How very different is it when the order that was refused to be carried out was lying? In this scenario, someone was fired for effectively not lying. For that person to then make the claim that one could reasonably expect their successor to do the lying they were unwilling to carry out is only logical if they wanted to keep the job. Sure, perhaps calling them "liars" is harsh diction. But what's unprofessional is firing an employee because of their integrity in regards to the truth, especially pertaining to public safety

There are no perfect whistleblowers. If you're looking for something that destroys their credibility, you'll always be able to find one. Your particular complaint here is purely aesthetic and I think we'd all be better off focusing on the substance rather than going ten rounds about word choice and tone.

She's prejudging management. If she was fired for refusing to do something, is management likely to replace her with another person or team who will also refuse to do the same?

I think I understand where you're coming from; the way I see it, she isn't prejudging anybody, maybe if anything judging the people who fired her, but not those who will come after. She believes the reason for her termination was her dedication to the cause, so from her perspective, if whoever took the job after her shared in her dedication, they too would be theoretically fired and replaced until the individual set to fill her position is somebody who would not refuse to "manipulate data"