NEWS ANALYSIS : Thomas, Backers Try to Make Him Seem Victim : Strategy: The issue is pressed so relentlessly that they appear to have taken the steam out of accuser’s charges.

From the beginning, Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas and his Republican defenders have had a simple battle plan: to portray Thomas, not his accuser, Anita Faye Hill, as the real victim of the lurid controversy over sexual harassment.

And, on Saturday, Thomas and his Republican supporters on the Senate Judiciary Committee executed that strategy so relentlessly during eight hours of televised hearings that they virtually silenced the Democrats and appeared to take the steam out of Hill’s stunning allegations.

The second session of the reconvened confirmation hearings was supposed to be the day that Democrats zeroed in on Thomas the way that Republicans had gone after Hill the day before. Instead, Thomas and his GOP supporters turned the tables by portraying the embattled nominee as the injured victim of grotesque charges that were first “concocted” and then leaked to the public to destroy his credibility.

“I will never be able to get my name back,” Thomas declared at one point, his lip quivering and his eyes appearing to well with tears.

“I’ve already lost,” he said at another point. “I’ve lost my name. I never aspired to the Supreme Court . . . . I’ve lost everything in this process. I am here not to be confirmed. I’m here to get my name back. All I have to gain from this process is to salvage a little bit of my integrity and a little bit of my name. Nothing more.”

Diplomatically, Thomas aimed his criticism at “the process,” but he really had in mind the senators, their staffs and the liberal interest groups that oppose him on ideological grounds. All of them conspired, Thomas said, to “dig up dirt” that would derail his confirmation.

And, in what appeared to be a carefully orchestrated performance, his charges were echoed again and again by Republicans on the committee. Sen. Alan K. Simpson of Wyoming reminded Thomas of a passage from “Othello”: “Good name in man and woman, dear my Lord, is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash . . . but he that filches from me my good name robs me of that which . . . makes me poor indeed.”

The present controversy--like Shakespeare’s tragic story of the Moorish general--”is about love and hate and cheating and distrust and kindness and disgust and avarice and jealousy and envy,” Simpson declared. “What a tragedy! What a disgusting tragedy!”

Democrats on the panel, wary of appearing to bully Thomas and add to his distress, did not press him Saturday to divulge more details of his relationship with Hill, even though he had unexpectedly acknowledged visiting her apartment on several occasions--to discuss school busing and other policy issues, he said.

Nor did they press him to go beyond his categorical denials and address her allegations with more specificity.

As a result, although Hill had held the spotlight Friday with her calm but gripping recitation of sexually explicit remarks that Thomas allegedly made to her when she was a member of his staff in the early 1980s, Thomas and his defenders managed to push those charges into the background Saturday by dwelling on his own suffering in the controversy and attacking “the process” of confirming high court justices.

As the second day of the special hearings came to an end, the committee members were left to offer their regrets for having put Thomas and his wife through such an ordeal.

Also, throughout the day, Republicans hammered at Hill’s credibility. And, because she did not appear before the committee, their suggestions of inconsistency and selective memory--which she had spiritedly rejected Friday--went unchallenged.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said he believed Hill had engaged in “flat-out perjury” by revising her earlier statement on whether she had discussed with a Senate aide the impact that her accusations would have on Thomas.

Although the wording of her answers changed only slightly, Specter, a former Philadelphia prosecutor, seemed to go out of his way to raise an allegation of perjury against the University of Oklahoma law professor.

Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said there was a “profound difference in political philosophy” between Hill and Thomas, suggesting that her more liberal views had prompted her to attempt to block his confirmation.

Thomas agreed in part, noting that she was “adamant” in her endorsement of racial “quotas” in the workplace, a position opposed by Bush and his Supreme Court nominee.

At other points, the Republicans suggested that Hill had been passed over for promotion at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and developed an anger toward her mentor Thomas, who was then the commission chairman.

Although Thomas did not directly accuse Hill of lying, he portrayed her Saturday as an employee who was strong-willed, immature and inclined to “temper tantrums” when her views did not prevail in staff discussions.

And, in responding to a general question on sexual harassment, Thomas succeeded in laying the groundwork for a key element of his defense.

“When you have a person who’s engaged in grotesque conduct or harassing conduct, you will find more than one person” who has been victimized, Thomas said. “If the person has a habit of harassing secretaries, you will find a series of secretaries. You will not find generally just one isolated instance.”

The committee today will hear from other people who know Hill or Thomas. None say that they directly witnessed Thomas harassing Hill. And Thomas’ supporters are hopeful that Hill will be the only woman--among hundreds that he has worked with--who will allege that he behaved improperly. If so, the Republicans can argue that Hill’s accusations do not deserve belief because there is no “pattern” of sexual harassment.

Despite a day in which the embattled nominee dominated the hearings, his Republican allies failed to supply a convincing answer to the question of why Hill came forward with her accusations in the first place.

When asked directly, Thomas repeated that he could not think of a reason why Hill, a longtime friend, would accuse him of such misbehavior. Near the end of the day, he suggested that others had “developed” or “concocted” the allegations. However, he refused to explain what he meant by such a suggestion.

Hill’s lawyers said they were convinced that her credibility had not been shaken. “What in the world is Anita Hill’s motive? Fantasy? Personal gain?” Harvard law professor Charles Ogletree, one of Hill’s attorneys, asked.

When several of her friends testify today, they will say that she was the true victim, having been harassed and humiliated by Thomas and finally forced to leave her job at the EEOC.

Still, Thomas turned the momentum in his direction Saturday and left the Senate Caucus Room to cheers from his supporters.

Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) seemed to sum up the situation in his closing comments. “The presumption (of innocence) remains with you, judge,” he said.