If someone comes forward as a leader of a movement, and gets quashed, and the organiser's of that movement's response is to then put forward the spouse as the candidate -- it's not a stretch to say many folks will be suspicious of the integrity, intentions and autonomy of the new person. Chances are she'll march to the drum of her husband/whatever group of people control that movements interests. It's also fairly clear that she wouldnt've run, if it weren't for her husbands disqualification -- which makes her commitment to the role a bit dubious.

In theory, the NDP caucus / membership should be the ones unquestionably in control of the party's future and direction -- not a small subset of unknown people/groups controlling a candidate. It's not that different in scope to the issues on the right-wing -- where a smaller contingent of extreme right-wing nuts have essentially managed to assume authority over the whole party, and steer its direction to their whims. Like if PP were turfed from the cons leadership, and the hard right faction then just stuck in the wife as a candidate/leader, it'd raise questions as to who's actually leading that party/movement -- cause clearly the leader is totally disposable, and there's some more opaque group with significant sway / control. The voting process would help to eventually normalise/mitigate some of the optics, in that you could argue she has the support of most of the party if she does end up winning -- but there'd still be some questions about a smaller subset group of unelected folks influencing her decisions.

And yes, I know, I've already been told recently that we shouldn't hold politicians to higher standards than normal folks. But I say fuck that, if someone wants me to follow them, they gotta actually lead/inspire. I'm way too lazy to deviate from my norm for more of the same old shit in politics.