Los Angeles literally falls apart in the rain. After nearly a week of downpours caused deadly sinkholes and mudslides, Mayor James Hahn was moved to ask President Bush to declare the nation’s second-largest city a disaster area. It was the first time in months that average Angelenos were offered tangible evidence they had a mayor.

Los Angeles’s mayoral election is less than three weeks away, but it registers as little more than a rumor. Instead, all eyes are fixed on this weekend’s Academy Awards, the real power game in town. A drive down Sunset Boulevard or a look at local magazines provides dozens of advertised reminders that Oscar night is approaching. The push for awards is approached like a political campaign by the studios, while the real political campaign is all but invisible. Waitresses have informed opinions on who should win the “best costume” award but remain unclear on their mayor’s name. The approach of an election is news to them.

All of which spells trouble for the largely competent incumbent, offering interesting parallels and contrasts to New York City’s own mayoral race.

Mr. Hahn was elected in 2001, winning a runoff against former Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa, who was favored to win by many in the liberal establishment. Mr. Hahn succeeded the popular, if sometimes controversial, reform Republican administration of New York-born Richard Riordan, who was often characterized as a mellower, West Coast version of Rudy Giuliani. Mr. Riordan coasted to reelection against the 1960s radical activist-turned-local politician Tom Hayden, who is the ex-husband of Jane Fonda.

But the charisma-challenged Mr. Hahn has failed to occupy the office as fully as his predecessor, with the Los Angeles Times dismissing him as “a technocrat who seems content to go home when the potholes have been counted.” This year he faces four accomplished candidates, all Democrats, in the city’s nonpartisan general election on March 8.With the Times already indicating its intention to support another candidate and former supporters mobilizing against him, there is a real chance that Mr. Hahn could not make the cut for the run-off.

Which is a shame, because even critics concede that Mr. Hahn has done many of the big things right. After homicides spiked 10% in 2001, Mr. Hahn took considerable heat when he declined to renew Police Commissioner Bernard Parks’s contract for another five years and instead hired New York City’s former police commissioner, William Bratton. Murder rates have declined 20% since, and overall crime rates fell 13%. Mr. Hahn used his political muscle to defeat a serious secession movement in San Fernando Valley, and he won a battle against the state government in Sacramento to stop their periodic raiding of local coffers to balance the budget. Seasoned observers cooed their approval, but somehow average citizens never got the message and don’t give Mr. Hahn credit for much of what has gone right under his watch. Sound familiar?

“When you look it over, the track record is impressive,” attests the president of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, Hahn supporter George Kieffer. “He chooses to do things more quietly and without as much fanfare. That is a different style, but in some ways a more effective one,” he told the L.A. Times. But former supporters complain that the mayor has been slow to reach out, call other elected officials on the phone, or engage the electorate.

Even Hahn campaign consultant Kam Kuwata conceded to the L.A. Times that, “Many people don’t know what Jim is like … I kid him about it, ‘Get out there. Take some credit.’ “

The mayor seems to feel content to continue on his chosen path without apology, confident that results will speak for themselves. Early campaign mailings indicate a strategy similar to the one Mayor Bloomberg is likely to roll out later this fall: “Mayor Hahn’s Gutsy Decisions Get Results.” But will prodigious fund-raising and the power of incumbency be enough to make citizens belatedly give credit to the current resident of City Hall?

Mr. Hahn’s primary competitors – Mr. Villaraigosa, former Police Commissioner Parks, State Senator Richard Alarcon, and former Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg, who was recently endorsed by Mr. Riordan – seem to be benefiting from the diminished dimensions of the office. There is a sense that the city is on automatic pilot, and that another candidate with greater passion can profitably add to the modest accomplishments of the Hahn administration.

Mr. Hahn has suffered from self-inflicted wounds that distinguish him from Mayor Bloomberg. A career politician, the son of a legendary local figure, Mr. Hahn appointed his chief fund-raiser to a government position doling out city contracts. A “pay-to-play” scandal has emerged along with federal and county investigations, including an alleged $4.2 million dollar over billing to the city from a public relations firm. Accordingly, much of the campaign’s political debate has so far centered on campaign finance reform – a debate that may emerge here in New York, but with the mayor above the fray due to his uniquely self-funded status. On the other hand, Mr. Hahn has a reputation for being a strong, go-for-the-jugular campaigner down the stretch, a reputation that Mr. Bloomberg does not yet share.

The Los Angeles mayoral race offers a glimpse into a local politics different from our own. While Oscar dominates the news on the left coast, here in New York we have been debating the mayoral race since the week after the presidential election. That said, the predicament of L.A.’s Invisible Mayor in this Invisible Campaign illustrates the dangers for an incumbent who has not captured the public’s imagination. One thing New York and L.A. share: We like a big star.