After an interview with Jill Stein, the Washington Post editorial board characterized her campaign as
Jill Stein’s fairy-tale candidacy. Here is their summary judgment.
GREEN PARTY presidential nominee Jill Stein argues that Americans should not vote for the lesser of two evils. Instead of voting out of fear, they should vote for the most deserving candidate. Unfortunately for Ms. Stein, even if you accepted the logic, it would not lead this year to a vote for her.
They concluded with these observations based on Stein's answers in the interview.
Ms. Stein did not exactly convey a sense of awe about how tough the presidency is. “I don’t believe that it is rocket science,” she said of administering the federal government. But that blitheness may not be surprising from a politician who cites climate change as a global emergency — and then argues the country would be no better off electing Ms. Clinton, who promises to continue Mr. Obama’s progress on warming, than Mr. Trump, who has said the whole thing is a hoax invented by the Chinese.
Jordan Weissmann (Slate.com) also reviewed Stein's policies and concluded that Jill Stein’s Ideas Are Terrible. She Is Not the Savior the Left Is Looking For.
...The bottom line is that Jill Stein is not a figure anybody should trust. She's not just an uncompromising progressive. She's a panderer who raves about subjects about which she appears to lack the vaguest understanding. She is right about one thing: There is a lot of snake oil in the system. And she's selling it.
AZBlueMeanie quotes a lot more from these sources in the Sunday Blog for Arizona Green Party candidate Jill Stein is not the choice for Progressives.