CHARISMA NOT ENOUGH VILLARAIGOSA FAILED TO RUN SMART RACE.

Byline: Arnold Steinberg Local View

HOW did Antonio Villaraigosa lose?

He was supported by much of the city's establishment, including billionaires Eli Broad, Ron Burkle, Haim Saban and Jerry Perenchio.

He was endorsed by Gov. Gray Davis, county Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, and most locally elected Democrats. Even Mayor Richard Riordan, whose differences with Antonio Villaraigosa's principal backer (county AFL-CIO boss Miguel Contreras) were well known, supported Villaraigosa. So did other Republicans, like state Senate Republican Leader Jim Brulte, legendary Reagan strategist Stu Spencer and Nixon speech writer Ken Khachigian.

Moreover, Villaraigosa's growing Latino constituency greatly outnumbered the city's declining African-American core, the base that made Hahn viable.

Also, in the primary, Villaraigosa had made major inroads in the Jewish community.

Finally, with the money spent by the Democratic Party and the unions, Villaraigosa's forces outspent Hahn.

Some have suggested that Los Angeles was not ready for a Latino mayor, or that Villaraigosa's support among non-Latinos peaked in the primary.

But the election of Rocky Delgadillo as city attorney suggests that ethnicity insufficiently explains the results. Indeed, it's possible that Hahn voters made penance by voting for Delgadillo, the ``other'' Latino candidate.

It's wrong to suggest that Villaraigosa did not campaign adequately in East Los Angeles to secure his base. He knew that to win, and to govern, he could be a candidate, or a mayor, who happened to be Latino, but not a Latino candidate, or a Latino mayor.

Villaraigosa should be praised for running a classy campaign, but he still did not have to give Hahn a free ride. His campaign's idea of an attack ad was a charges/countercharges theme meaningless to the electorate. Voters do not care which candidate allegedly is quoting which newspaper article out of context.

The one issue raised - a police workweek that is 5 days, 4 days, or 3 days - was obfuscated. What mattered to most voters was that the cops endorsed Hahn.

The reality is that Villaraigosa failed to make sufficient inroads among white Democrats, independent voters, and, especially, the city's endangered species - Republicans.

For example, Villaraigosa knew he would lose the Republican vote, but, quite simply, he needed to cut his losses in order to win the election. But he failed to appeal to Republicans and conservative voters on issues related to small business, limited government and taxes.

With both him and Hahn in fact barely distinguishable on such issues, he could have defined himself, while Hahn floundered, appearing to pander to Maxine Waters.

In fact, Villaraigosa and his campaign failed to attack, early and often, Hahn's stewardship of the City Attorney's Office, let alone to criticize Hahn's performance as fiscally irresponsible.

Villaraigosa's campaign gave Hahn a pass. Hahn made an issue of his 20 years of experience, and voters generally find experience in office to be compelling. Yet, Villaraigosa did not engage Hahn, whose record in office was unchallenged. The Villaraigosa campaign somehow concluded that challenging Hahn on his record was negative campaigning or, worse, a personal attack.

Hahn's performance as city attorney not only was fair game, but it was the key for Villaraigosa to reach well beyond his primary electorate toward the vote-rich San Fernando Valley.

Emerging in first place in the primary, Villaraigosa had the momentum. But the Hahn campaign quickly went on the offensive, telegraphing clearly that Villaraigosa would be depicted as soft on crime and gangs.

The Villaraigosa campaign, faced with an exaggerated, overdrawn attack, thought it could impeach the messenger. But in the all-too-familiar game of ``he said, he said,'' voters would likely opt for the familiar Hahn name.

And that's just what they did.

Mayor Richard Riordan remains popular and respected, but he has endorsed so many people over so many years that his endorsement was overvalued by the Villaraigosa campaign.

Mayor Riordan's endorsement of Villaraigosa not only came late, but it meandered. Riordan's statement should have been brief and focused, so that the evening news could focus on two key points.

First, Villaraigosa, not Hahn, could best carry on Riordan's unfinished work.

Second, Villaraigosa would be an effective leader who, far better than Hahn, could ensure the survival of the middle class in Los Angeles.

Instead, Mayor Riordan was put on a bus, and the television clip was ``Viva Antonio,'' with Riordan speaking broken Spanish. (Odd, since Mayor Riordan in 1998 had courageously embraced Proposition 227, which replaced the state's discredited bilingual education program for English immersion.)

Choreographed ineptly, the Riordan endorsement, ironically, may have reinforced voter alienation, while the bus tour galvanized skeptical voters already leaning to Hahn.

Similarly, the Villaraigosa campaign was unable to dramatize the candidate's endorsement by credible, if scarcely known, Republicans.

Stu Spencer and Ken Khachigian have powerful stories to tell about Ronald Reagan. Instead, their unknown status was celebrated by mailings that failed to connect emotionally with Republicans, some of whom could have been cherry-picked away from Hahn.

Curious still, was the media coverage of the campaign. Unfortunately for Villaraigosa, the media seemed obsessed with the ethnic angle. The Los Angeles Times endorsed him in a patronizing editorial (``Villaraigosa is not without his weaknesses ... lapses in judgment'') which inexplicably (just in case you didn't know) became specific - children out of wedlock, marital infidelity.

One can only ask - with friends like this - would the newspaper have written with such disrespect about a white candidate? And are the newspaper editorial board members all faithful in a happy marriage?

One wonders about the mind-set, as the newspaper seemed to overcompensate in desperation for a Villaraigosa victory. For example, in its tortured advocacy of Villaraigosa, the newspaper described its own poll's definitive 7-point lead for Hahn as ``slim.''

Even on election night, after the results were clear to political analysts, the newspaper's hopeful account, published in Wednesday's home edition, described the election results as ``remarkably close'' when Hahn's margin never shrunk below 54 percent.

Even on Friday, the Times' Steve Lopez called the record Latino turnout an ``embarrassment.'' - meaning it was somehow too low. Incredibly, Lopez claimed ``34 percent of the registered voters in Los Angeles are white and 41 percent are Hispanic. But 52 percent of those who voted are white and 22 percent Hispanic.'' His percentages of registered voters by race are, quite simply, pure fiction.

In the beginning, the charismatic Villaraigosa was a far superior campaigner to the staid Hahn. But by the last 10 days, Villaraigosa, voice hoarse, body tired, seemed to whine. Voters are not drawn to a victim. He looked and sounded like a loser.

Meantime, Hahn, uncharacteristically, seemed to gain confidence equal to his experience, and stature commensurate with his height. He looked and sounded like a winner.

These closing images of the two candidates were not lost on voters.

Then, Villaraigosa's final advertising was reduced to a desperate sounding tagline - ``please vote.''

The final Hahn ad was a well-lit talking head in which Hahn finally had the presence of a mayor.

Was the Hahn campaign racist? The reality is that if Antonio Villaraigosa, Latino, were Ralph Smith, Anglo, the Hahn campaign would have run the same television spot, highlighting, in this case, Ralph Smith's letter to secure Carlos Vignali's release. The tagline would have been, ``Los Angeles can't trust Ralph Smith.''

Villaraigosa is too smart to have lied originally about the letter. Coupled with faulty staff work, he misspoke. He misjudged the issue and failed to correct the record promptly. The Hahn campaign caught him in what seemed to be a lie and made the most of it.

Unfair? That's politics.

From the beginning, Villaraigosa and his campaign had badly miscalculated the potency of the Vignali pardon issue. Near the end, Villaraigosa was calling a news conference on the issue, then refusing to answer questions. Now, he was turning reporters against him. Worse, at one point, Mayor Riordan interrupted to answer questions in Villaraigosa's behalf.

Antonio Villaraigosa indeed was from the heart of Los Angeles. What an impressive candidate, in so many ways. But in his heart, he knows that while racists may read their own prejudice into Hahn's campaign, the Hahn campaign was, shall we say, normal and predictable. Perhaps the only reason the Vignali ad did not start earlier was that Hahn's strategists, even after all the Villaraigosa spending and the Riordan endorsement, found, midway through the runoff period, their candidate still running competitively or even somewhat ahead in the polls.

Hahn's campaign had the old fallback - Hahn was experienced. That's not enough, if you're under attack. But Hahn was not really attacked, or even engaged. And experience goes a long way when doubts are raised about your opponent, no matter what his race.

Hahn didn't have a Teflon suit. He didn't need one.

CAPTION(S):

2 photos

Photo: (1 -- color) Accompanied by Gov. Gray Davis, mayoral candidate Antonio Villaraigosa.

David Sprague/Staff Photographer

(2) Mayor-elect James Hahn acknowledges the cheers of his supporters at the Westin Bonaventure Hotel in downtown Los Angeles on Tuesday night.

Michael Owen Baker/Staff Photographer