Good research, well presented and documented. I think it goes a little too far in making assumptions about Obama's position with regard to oil companies. Neither does it include subsidies in it's estimates of true ethanol cost, or look at the water problem with regard to security. But those are relatively minor shortcomings. I think a brief mention of Republicans would be good context, since this is all about Democrats.

The story is good in holding up candidate statements of fiction for review, and showing holes in the information and logic. A weakness in the story is that it did not cover other problems with ethanol. Fuel usage to grow corn, current use as an additive, food costs, water usage, erosion, carbon emissions, reduced production with global warming, etc. Alternatives were not mentioned. The huge effects of agribusiness political contributions upon the scientific inclinations of candidates in corn states was brushed over. See also Corn-Based Ethanol: Is This a Solution? here on NewsTrust.

The conclusion of the article was preordained. The reason for the bias is not clear but evident nonetheless. Facts were checked but only selectively so as to reinforce their conclusion.

This is a very good article for those who have followed the near unanimous favorable coverage of ethanol as a "solution" to our many-faceted energy/global warming problems. Although the long article is written around the premise of "checking out" the claims of the several leading Democrat presidential candidates, the story can be read on its own terms as a fairly good primer on the plusses and minuses associated with ethanol.