Dan:

(On 1) I agree with you (and with Erhman) that there is an apocalyptic dimension to Ehrman that makes his treatment of Jesus superior to that of the Seminar. But Ehrman's sloppy portrayal of how orality works in the early church and in the Jesus tradition leaves his result in the same place: inadequate to really treat the level of agreement in the gist of the story about Jesus in the material we have (something Erhman ignores). 

(On 2) As to the personal story, it is actually pretty irrelevant in the long run. What if I told you I started out as an agnostic whose study of the texts convinced me of their core credibility (which is absolutely true in terms of my biography). The result is our stories (Ehrman's and mine) neutralize each other.  I never have used this, because to me it is not relevant to working with the facts of what is in the texts.

Yes, Ehrman writes well and accessibly. No one has ever questioned that.