Kind of like how TJ Maxx overwhelms me

I find myself overwhelmed trying to discern what candidates actually believe on different topics. There's so much information, in so many places--even just within a candidate's official web site--that it's hard to know how to make sense of it, how to know you're finding everything he/she has out there on the topic, how to compare it to another candidate when that other candidate has organized and categoried his/her stances in a different way. And it's hard to tell how the info gatekeepers have affected the info and the reader's interpretation of it. I can read who voted for this bill and denounced that one till my eyes fall out (heaven forbid), but without the right context, can we really put much stock into all that listing of votes, pulling of isolated quotations, and whatnot? The context might be able to be found, but it's buried somewhere in that sea of links and related articles. Don't get me wrong; I'd rather have too much information, laid out in platitudes and vetted by campaign writers to ensure just the right balance of detail and complete lack of detail all at the same time, than too little information. But I wish I didn't get overwhelmed thinking I must take every issue important to me and weigh the candidates in complete parallel fashion, with all the relevant facts and details fully and objectively revealed to me, so that I can make the best decision, one that I can be 100% confident is the decision that best fits my agenda ... because I'm pretty convinced that's just not possible, at least for me. And I don't think that's pessimism as much as a realism that on most other days eludes me.

Oh, so I'm voting for your cat.