One of the many surprises of the Democratic race is how sharply sentiment has turned against Senator Clinton. No sooner had Iowa backed Senator Obama than even some of her previously loyal supporters began to express relief. So long as Mrs. Clinton was thought to be “inevitable,” there was little point in expressing doubts about her qualities. A general Democratic view was, “I don’t much like her, but of course I will end up voting for her.”

Senator Obama’s insurgency made such fair weather support unnecessary. He became a plausible alternative to the “inevitable” candidacy of Mrs. Clinton. As the Illinois senator’s campaign began to gather pace, so criticism of the Clintons became more open and vitriolic. The ultimate power couple’s ability to craft the party’s expectations in their favor, a political trick they performed for years, was being confounded by an outsider they had neither expected nor planned for.

The press the Clintons had relied upon for tacit support in their plan to retake the White House also soon turned against them. It was hard for many columnists and commentators to suppress their glee at seeing the once all powerful Clintons scrabbling around. Political reporters relished the chance to spell out exactly how much trouble Mrs. Clinton was in and the severe difficulty she would have regaining the initiative over her young rival. Rarely has so much bad news been delivered by so many smiling faces.

Mrs. Clinton’s determination to stay in the race however long the odds against her have only emboldened her opponents. Her argument that she has won in the key big states needed to take victory in November, while Mr. Obama has won mostly in Republican voting states, has been scoffed at. Her failure to win do-over primaries in Michigan and Florida became reason for celebration. Figures that showed her slowly regaining support among Democrats or reflecting a slowing of Senator Obama’s momentum, such as his failure to win in Ohio and Texas despite outspending her several times over in television advertising, were given scant mention.

The people who accuse Mrs. Clinton of defying party rules over Michigan and Florida are the same wiseacres who insist that the role awarded to super delegates as tie-breakers be ignored in favor of bowing to the majority will of caucus goers and primary voters, even though the slender difference between the two candidates’ popular vote totals is made up of independents and Republicans backing Mr. Obama.

Even the hand wringing over race that followed the belated screening of video showing Senator Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright spewing hatred against America was somehow used to condemn Mrs. Clinton simply because she stood to benefit. Although most politicians will complain that they have to endure a hostile press and a skeptical electorate, Mrs. Clinton can with some justice claim to be a perennial victim of a long campaign of attrition that began when she and her husband entered the White House.

Senator Clinton has compared herself to Margaret Thatcher, which is not the stretch it may seem. Although Lady Thatcher herself cannot see any similarities — “She’s not in the least like me. I know that because I’m not in the least like her,” she told the historian Andrew Roberts recently — the two women share many characteristics.

They can both appear bossy and are quick to adopt a hectoring tone in argument. Their common executive style is the mastery of policy detail followed by close administration of its implementation by subordinates. Their sense of ideological certainty means they rarely see merit in their opponents’ arguments. Early in the campaign, Mrs. Clinton even found it difficult to mention the name of Ronald Reagan.

Most of all, the two women attract caustic and often venomous opposition. In America, Lady Thatcher is regarded as something of a saint, Reagan’s political widow, whereas in London she attracts praise only from the most devoted of conservatives, a small contingent which, perhaps surprisingly, includes Prime Minister Brown.

Senator Clinton is similarly widely derided. Though she certainly attracts devotion among her inner circle, there has not been such a reviled presidential candidate since Richard Nixon. Mrs. Clinton believes she is the victim of “a vast right wing conspiracy”; Nixon, too, believed there was a concerted effort by his enemies to discredit him. Their common response to the invisible forces plotting to do them down is to redouble their efforts to succeed.

This intransigence bred of paranoia will ensure there is no early end to the Democratic race, save an upset such as Mrs. Clinton losing Pennsylvania. There are signs, however, that while the tirade by the Reverend Wright has fallen from the headlines, the alarm raised by Senator Obama’s association with such an unpatriotic mentor may have caused him severe damage.

Opinion data gathered in Pennsylvania by Public Policy Polling show that Mrs. Clinton may now be winning one black voter for every two won by Mr. Obama, a sharp improvement on the one in 10 she was previously attracting. And she is now winning every age group, including the 18-25 year olds that, along with African-Americans, form Mr. Obama’s core supporters.

There may be at least one last twist in this race, a reversal of fortunes that might vindicate Mrs. Clinton’s dogged persistence. If so, it would be a defeat for conventional wisdom and the gloating press that the maligned Richard Nixon would have greatly appreciated.

nwapshott@nysun.com