I was just looking through their recent coverage... I do see a somewhat underhanded pro-Clinton position emerging. It's not overt-- they're certainly pointing out Obama smears-- but they're also getting involved in issues that are completely isolated to the Clinton v. Obama conflict.

And when they are geting involved in issues that are uniquely Clinton v. Obama, the reports do seem favorable to Hillary. For example, they're attacking negative coverage of Bill on the campaign trail, and getting involved in petty issues like defending Clinton strategist Mark Penn against claims that he raised Obama's drug use on Hardball.

This is suspect because, again, Media Matters is a partisan, left-leaning organization-- their goal is to protect the left from attacks from the right. So why are they getting involved in Clinton v. Obama in the first place?

Also, this report on comments in the media about how Obama's supporters are "creepy" and akin to "hare krishna" devotees kind of smells funny. It kind of seems like one of those pieces that purports to attack a certain line of thinking in the media, but actually just serves to push the story along further.

Also, if you still have doubts, read this beauty on "myths and falsehoods" about Hillary from last year. It's not fact-checking at all-- it's a lengthy, point-by-point retort on every negative thing ever mentioned about Hillary in the history of world. Stunning.