Eigg, I apologise. In hindsight, I don't mean solely running a country, I mean trying to run the UK. I was responding specifically to this:
"If these women feel stressed in a televised debate, how the hell are they going to cope when faced with a genuinely serious diplomatic incident that potentially could be seen as an act of war by a major world power (the Litvinenko incident was very touch-and-go at one point)? How are they going to cope with foreign incursions into British territorial waters, such as we are seeing at present in the waters around Scotland? How will they respond with a clear head to a major terrorist incident that requires decisions on the hoof?"
My point was that up to this point, none of them have had to be the figurehead dealing with this sort of thing. Nicola has a taste of it and I'm amazed she's still going ahead. 
What's wrong with emotions in politics? Arsenic, your language clearly shows that any emotion means that politics is reduced. You talk about dissolving, not comporting themselves. I think emotion has a place. Surely it needs to.
It does nothing to set feminism back. If it had been two men hugging or one man and one woman, would you say the same thing? If they felt the need for a personal point of contact and offered a warm, human embrace to each other as three people trying to better their country, then I'd rather they hug in front of the nation than repress their natural need for human contact and reassurance.
I am a feminist and I raise my dd the same way. I will not teach her that there is a job in the world that means you have to shy away from affection and natural, human, spontaneous celebration of shared experience.