Sep 21, 2006, Nick Schou — OC Weekly

Eileen Padberg was a Republican political consultant from Laguna Niguel until two years ago. That’s when she dropped everything—on something like a lark, but more sober given that it involved moving from the relative tranquility of Orange County political infighting to a real, brutal killing zone—to help Iraqi businesswomen. It wasn’t until she put on a gas mask for the first time that Padberg had second thoughts about the decision.

She was standing in an air-conditioned conference room at a Kellogg, Brown N Root office inside the Khalifa Hilton, located on a beach 40 miles south of Kuwait City. It was late May 2005 and blazingly hot outside. In two days, Padberg and her Iraqi-American associate were scheduled to fly to Baghdad on a lumbering U.S. Air Force C-130 cargo plane. An American military officer was patiently showing her and about 15 other American civilians how to attach the masks to their faces quickly enough to survive a biological weapon attack.

Along with the gas mask, Padberg had just been issued a 41-pound flak vest and a helmet. With the equipment came a briefing. “Don’t walk anywhere alone,” the officer warned them. “Don’t pick up anything on the street—there are improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, everywhere in Baghdad, and even a $100 bill can be rigged to explode.”

“That’s when the reality of my decision to go to Iraq finally sank in,” Padberg says. “Before that, I really hadn’t thought about how dangerous Iraq really was. I started asking myself, ‘What have I done?’ But by then it was too late to turn around.”


Feb 20, 2005, Eileen Padberg  — Gulf Region Division

The Gulf Region Division (GRD) Water Sector Women’s Initiative hosted its quarterly Roundtable Discussion recently. Eighteen Iraqi women business owners participated in the four- hour discussion on contracting procedures. The Roundtable Discussion takes a small number of Iraqi women-owned businesses and walks through the contracting process for them. These workshops help the women business owners to understand better the process – from how to locate the contracts up for bid to how to respond to the debriefings.

Kathye Johnson, GRD Director of Reconstruction welcomed the women and told them that her office was interested and eager to help women business owners secure contracts.

“There are two elements to winning the peace in Iraq – one is security and the other is reconstruction and infrastructure. My whole Contracting team is anxious to make certain that women have equal opportunities in getting some of the many contracts that are available – we believe in your capabilities. We believe in you,” said Johnson.

Johnson introduced Sahar, a successful woman business owner who participated in the Women’s Initiatives training programs. Sahar expressed her appreciation for the training that she received that allowed her to win contracts.

James Addis, Joint Contracting Command-Iraq Contracting Officer taught the workshop wherein he explained the contract process and answered questions. In addition, representatives from both Fluor/AMEC and Washington International attended to meet the women and offer their help and guidance in the bidding process.

“Women are 62 percent of the population in Iraq and they need to be recognized for their contributions. No democracy can survive when women are denied a stake in the economy,” said Eileen Padberg, Program Manager, Communications and Public Awareness. “Many of the Iraqi women business owners lack confidence because they are not used to competing against men, but attending these training programs has given them confidence.”

There will be another Roundtable Discussion scheduled in January. In addition, a newsletter will be distributed to the women-owned businesses that are part of the database.

“We want to help as many women business owners as possible get contracts. Creating a comfortable and safe environment where the Iraqi women can ask questions is our goal, “said Joyce Downey, Manager, Women’s Initiatives.


Jan 1, 2005, Eileen Padberg — Women In Leadership

The first elections in Iraq since 1958 were a huge success!  Since we now have cable television in our trailer, I was able to watch CNN, BBC and Fox News all day.  It was so exciting.  I was really moved by the many women that risked their lives to vote.  It is always worse for them.  I know that you were watching the same coverage – those smiling faces. It brought back memories of when I was in Guatemala for their first ever democratic elections.  They didn’t have as many choices that the Iraqis had, and their candidates were rumored to be military coup candidates.  When I asked them why they were voting, they would always smile and say, “Because we can.”

I was reminded by my friend Ladonna Lee this morning that she was in Haiti for the first democratic elections.  The gorillas there machined gunned the place where the elections were taking place, killing many US AID workers. But the people were determined to vote. The voters were hiding behind huge concrete barriers and one at a time they would run in, all crouched down, vote and run back behind the barriers – while the gorillas were shooting at them.  I only wish our own citizens thought voting was as important.   

No matter what the turnout is here – and some say it is 70% – the elections will have been a success.   No one here has been allowed to vote at all since 1958.   And, just like the US, large numbers of voters chose not to vote – that is also their right.  If you choose to sit it out, then you have little say in the construction of their first constitution.

The insurgents threw everything at us in the last few days trying mightily to scare the Iraqis away from voting.  Literally on Saturday night there must have been 40 mortars, explosions and lots of gunfire.  I kept trying to decide whether to put on my vest and helmet.  One mortar hit the Palace/Embassy.  Two people were killed, two people that I knew – although not very well, and many others were injured.  If the mortar had exploded a lot more people would have died, but it did not explode.

We, as you know were not allowed to come to the office.  We closed at 4:00 pm on Saturday and were not allowed back until today – Monday. Everyone in charge of security here were more worried that a mortar or even a suicide bomber would attack our building which is a prime target.

We won’t know for another 10-15 days whether or not Esra’s mother will win a seat.  I am very excited for her.  She says it isn’t about winning – but about running and putting yourself out there as a candidate.

Regardless of our reasons for being here in Iraq, I wanted all of you to know how proud I was when I watched the many people risking their lives to vote – and knowing that many of the voters were women.  I was also proud when I watched as the cars took our own Iraqi ex-pats to the convention center to vote.  I was not allowed to go because of security, but I was there in spirit as I sent Esra off.  They all came back and held up their index fingers covered in purple ink.

I believe that yesterday’s elections brought a new sense of pride to the Iraqis.  I don’t think that the insurgents will go quietly away, but I do think we will begin to see more Iraqis standing up for themselves in the coming months.

Esra and I are busy working on our next conference in Kirkurk.  The travel and accommodations are incredibly challenging.  No one is in charge!  I’ve already lost my temper three times this morning.  We started the process a week ago and we are not closer to securing a place or what they call around here – life support (accommodations, security and food).

Anyway, all is well.  Thank you for your continued support.



Oct 14, 2004, Eileen Padberg — Women In Leadership

WIL Board Member Eileen Padberg has been in IRAQ for more than 6 months as a civilian helping to build a democracy that includes women contractors. She emailed us this week:

On a very sad note, my brother passed away on September 28th. Heart attack at age 58! I had been in Basra (south of Baghdad) with members of our Water Sector Team providing Operations and Maintenance Training seminars. I rushed off the next morning to Las Vegas to be with my nieces and sister-in-law. My friend Julie Wright flew over from California to support me. I did manage to spend one night in California, slept in my very own bed and showered in my own shower! I am still very sad and will need to find a way to deal with this terrible loss.

As I have said, all security reports indicate that the violence will escalate here up through the election – and today, we definitely were reminded of how true that is. I have mentioned the Green Zone Café, less than a quarter of a mile from our office – a lot of us like to eat there. But while I was in the US, a bomb was found in the air conditioning unit and our security as well as the Embassy security issued a “do not visit” mandate last week. Well today, a suicide bomber hit the Green Zone Café and another suicide bomber hit the Haji Market (a little Iraqi Bazarre less than a quarter of a mile from our office in the opposite direction of the GZC). We are all pretty shaken here – we could feel the impact. Our entire building rattled. Way too close and as I have said, the insurgents will feel a big victory because they were able to get inside. The good news is that we have accounted for all of our team mates – we have a strict accounting system. Two of our friends in the Electric Sector were just getting ready to walk into the Haji Market and were blown back. Their response when they got back here was gruesome. We had scheduled emergency evacuation practice for this afternoon – so we all knew what to do.

We are all in lock down – no one leaves the office for a while. Those people that were out at the Palace are locked down there.

On to the good news–I am beginning to feel that we might be on the verge of making some progress with regard to opportunities for women. We held an Operations and Maintenance Training seminar in Basra two weeks ago. Our own people told me when I asked why there were no women enrolled, “that women were not interested in operations and maintenance training.” I pushed and recruited 7 women engineers to participate. The response was great. One woman who attended said that she had worked for the Water Directorate for 15 years and had never had any training and thought it was extremely valuable. She gave me the names of 9 other women that wanted and needed training. I view this as big victory because our own guys learned a valuable lesson, despite the assurances of the local water director that he “couldn’t find any women that would be interested.”

I am encouraged by continued reports coming out of Washington DC about how important programs like ours are – and of course, I give that speech at least once a day. Just yesterday, two of our design build contractors came to me and asked if Esra and I could find three separate women owned businesses that could provide copying services (there is a lot of data that needs to be copied and distributed) and computer services. Esra and I have been gathering resumes and meeting with various women owned businesses for the past three months. We will come up with several choices! This is exactly what I want to do, provide many women with the ability to start a business or expand their business with work generated by the reconstruction efforts. The victory here is that the design-build contractors came to me with the request. I have been preaching to them for three months –“unless we can guarantee women a real stake in the economy of Iraq, Democracy will not take root and we will have wasted all of our efforts and money.”

Esra was asked to participate in a White House update on the fate of Iraqi women – this is a follow-up to a conference she attended last year. It was held by Under Secretary of State, Paula Dobriansky (she is a big supporter of our program). While in DC, Esra made the rounds of several other “state department” types touting our program and our efforts to help Iraqi women. Esra also met up with our friend the Minister of State for Women who was also visiting Washington.

…Anyway, I hope this catches you up on my life and activities. I hope you are all well. Oh, and one more thing….the one and only day that I was in California, guess what was on my desk ….my absentee ballot. I have been a long time permanent absentee voter, so there it was. I would only say this about that,…..when you vote,…remember the ladies.

Thank you for all you do for me and for keeping me in your prayers. It is very much appreciated.


E-Book Link

2000 — Argument in Favor of Proposition 34

Reform California political campaigns. Vote YES on Proposition 34.

– Clamp a Lid on campaign contributions

– Limit campaign spending

– Require faster disclosure of contributions via the Internet

– Does not allow taxpayer dollars to be used in campaigns

– Stop political “sneak attacks”

– Close loopholes for wealthy candidates

– Increase fines for law violators

Currently there are no limits on what politicians can collect and spend to get elected to state office. California is still the wild west when it comes to campaign fundraising. Six-figure campaign contributions are routine. Proposition 34 finally sets enforceable limits and puts voters back in charge of California’s political process.


Proposition 34 brings strict contribution limits to every state office. These limits are tough enough to rein in special interests and reasonable enough to be upheld by the courts. Proposition 34 bans lobbyists from making ANY contribution to any elected state officer they lobby.


Campaign spending is out of control. Proposition 34 creates legally allowable limits to keep spending under control and includes a system so voters know who abides by the limits and who doesn’t.


Proposition 34 requires candidates and initiatives to disclose contributions of $1,000 or more on the Internet within 24 hours for a full three months before the end of the campaign.


Proposition 34 does not impose taxpayer dollars to be used to finance political campaigns in California. Our tax money is better spent on schools, roads and public safety.



Wealthy candidates can loan their campaigns more than $100,000, then have special interests repay their loans. Proposition 34 closes this loophole.


In no-limits California, candidates flush with cash can swoop into other races and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars at the last minute to elect their friends. Proposition 34 stops these political sneak attacks.


Three times in the past twelve years, voters have attempted to enact limits only to have the courts strike them down. Proposition 34 has been carefully written to fully comply with all court rulings and will set reasonable limits that can be enforced.

VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 34 if you’re tired of special interests controlling our government.

VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 34 if you want real campaign reform that can and will be enforced.

VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 34 if you don’t want taxpayers to pay for political campaigns.

Proposition 34 is tough, fair and enforceable. It deserves your support.

DAN STANFORD, Former Chair
California Fair Political Practices Commission

Bipartisan Commission on the Political Reform Act

HOWARD L. OWENS, Director of Region IX
National Council of Senior Citizens


E-Book Link

Apr 17, 1992, Judy Mann — The Washington Post

Kathryn G. Thompson has built thousands of houses in Orange County, Calif. She’s been so successful that she was able to give $100,000 to the Republican National Committee in support of President Bush. She got a funny kind of thank you.

At a reception for “Team 100” contributors like herself, then-RNC Chairman Clayton Yeutter walked up and said: “And who do you belong to, little lady?” And with that, the former secretary of agriculture stepped in a rhinestone cow pie.

Thompson wrote about the incident in a February op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times. The RNC needs this kind of publicity like it needs another round of Supreme Court hearings. Then in March, Thompson signed on as the finance co-chairwoman for the campaign of Judith Ryan, a retired Superior Court judge who is challenging Rep. Robert K. Dornan in the Republican primary for California’s new 46th congressional district.

Dornan, one of the House’s leading opponents of abortion, is the author of the amendments to the District of Columbia appropriation bills that prohibit the use of federal funds to pay for abortions for poor women in the nation’s capital.

Thompson has had no trouble figuring out why she should support a Republican woman who advocates abortion rights for Dornan’s seat. Women, she believes, can restore the competitive ethic to the nation. As she wrote in the Times: “I and many other successful women have developed something our leaders in this nation don’t have and desperately need: an ethic of success through struggle. We know that success requires some kind of change and understand that institutions not only inhibit the process of change but discourage the very idea.”

Ryan’s entry into the race is providing progressive, abortion-rights organizations with one of their best opportunities this year for bumping off a major foe. And Dornan is running scared. Never one to duck a fight, he has reacted so vengefully to this assault on his seat that his old sobriquet of “B-1 Bob” (earned through his support of the B-1 bomber) has been updated to “Bully Bob” in the Los Angeles press.

“He’s public enemy number one for women,” said Eileen Padberg, Ryan’s campaign manager. “They’ve done everything they can to keep us out of the race. He called and said he would have the White House call me. I’d have the wrath of the White House on my back. He said I’d never work for Republicans again. He’d have my RNC contract canceled. I said, ‘I never had an RNC contract. Those only go to the good ol’ boys, not the good ol’ girls.’ ”

Padberg said Ryan was able to raise $50,000 in the two weeks after she announced her candidacy on March 11. But Dornan still has formidable fund-raising strength among conservatives.

One group that is not giving Ryan money is the WISH List, a new group of Republican women who are supporting pro-choice Republican women. Victoria Toensing, a Washington lawyer and a founder of the WISH List, said the group never intended to support challengers to GOP incumbents, but would support pro-choice Republican women running for open seats and in general elections.

But Padberg, who said she was involved in some of the original discussions leading up to the group, said, “There are minute numbers of open districts. For them to think that did not include challenging incumbents, I don’t know where they are coming from. That was never part of the original conversations.”

What no one seems to dispute is that when Dornan got wind of the possibility that the WISH List would support Ryan, he confronted Republican women in Congress who back the group and secured their promise that they would not support a challenger against him.

Thus, Ryan is not going to get support from the Republican women who would seem to be her most likely allies. It doesn’t take much to figure out why Dornan is earning the “Bully Bob” moniker.

Ryan is expected to get support from the National Women’s Political Caucus when it meets next week to select the candidates it will help. The California branch of the caucus has recommended that Ryan be supported.

“No one sounds so astounded when men contest another man for a seat,” said caucus chairwoman Harriett Woods. “And the funding groups put their money behind the person who supports their positions.”

Kathryn Thompson understands this. Incumbents don’t have permanent title to their seats. Women who have the guts to go against them are the people who are going to revitalize democracy and bring new energy into an exhausted political process. They deserve all-out support from other Republican women. Wishing Dornan away won’t cut it.


Jun 6, 1988, Robert Reinhold — The New York Times

LOS ANGELES, June 5 — When Gov. Michael S. Dukakis, the son of Greek immigrants, visits the Mexican-American barrios of East Los Angeles, he delights audiences with his flawless Spanish.

Backers of the probable Democratic Presidential nominee here call it his ”secret weapon,” although many in his audiences are not American citizens and cannot vote.

Vice President Bush cannot order breakfast in Spanish, so his campaign has drafted his son Jeb, who is married to a Mexican woman and speaks fluent Spanish, to woo the Hispanic vote. Burgeoning But Unproven

Both the Democrats and the Republicans are gearing up to attract the burgeoning Hispanic vote, which many see as a potential, but as yet unproven, ”swing” bloc in California, Texas, New York and other major states.

The potency of the Hispanic vote is not likely to be tested in Tuesday’s Presidential primary here. With Californians’ feeling that the race in both parties has long been settled, the predictions are for a record low turnout. Only the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who met with Hispanics here this morning, has campaigned heavily here in a final effort to untrack Governor Dukakis of Massachusetts.

But both parties are looking toward November, and the Republicans see much potential in the Hispanic people, who are increasingly middle class and whose conservative family and patriotic values find an echo in Republican rhetoric. In 1984, polls showed that President Reagan ran exceptionally well among this tradionally heavily Democratic electorate, losing to Walter F. Mondale by a narrow 55-to-44 percentage.

But so far Mr. Bush is not doing as well as his boss did four years ago. In a survey released Friday by KMEX, a Spanish-language television station here, and Univision, a Spanish network, Mr. Dukakis beat Mr. Bush by 66 to 23 percent among Hispanic voters in California who are likely to vote in the primary and in November. The poll questioned 700 would-be voters, and the margin of error among the 170 Hispanic was 7.5 percent. About 3 Million Voters

Nationally, about three million voters are considered Hispanic, a catchall category for persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban and other Latin American origin. That is only 3.6 percent of all American voters, but Hispanics are considered a potentially key vote because they are concentrated in six major states – New York, New Jersey, Florida, Illinois, Texas and California – that together account for 173 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win in November.

”In close elections that are decided by a few percentage points, incremental shifts in the Latino vote can be a deciding factor,” according to a recent analysis by Harry P. Pachon and Louis DeSipio of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials.

But there are doubts among some political experts.

Here in California, according to Mervin D. Field, director of the California Poll, Hispanics make up 22 percent of the general population, but in 1986 they represented only 8 percent of the voters. Only one in four Hispanic adults voted that year; more than a third were not eligible to register because they were not American citizens.

”They are a big population, but not a swing vote,” Mr. Field said.

Eileen Padberg, regional political director for the Bush campaign, said Hispanic voters would be courted through such efforts as Spanish-language ads, even though there have been none for the primary. ‘Increasingly Conservative

And Mr. Bush has met repeatedly with Mexican-American leaders. ”This Hispanic community is growing and it’s increasingly conservative,” said Steven A. Merksamer, a former campaign director for California Gov. George Deukmejian, a Republican. ”We have to make every efffort to attract them.”

”The majority of Hispanics are conservative,” said Ray Jaurequi, coordinator of the 552-member Republican Hispanic Task Force here. ”Most are Democrats only because their fathers and mothers were. The Hispanic middle class is growing by leaps and bounds.”

The Dukakis camp says the Democrat can overcome the Republican appeal by stressing his own ethnic origins. ”Dukakis as the son of immigrants symbolizes the American dream in a very magical way to Hispanics,” said Alice R. Travis, national political coordinator of the Dukakis campaign. ”His ability to talk directly with them, in Spanish, is also very important.”

Mr. Dukakis, whose California campaign director, Richard Ybarra, is Mexican-American, began radio spots in Spanish only this weekend. They stress such concerns as education, housing, the family and Central America.

Both parties are planning concerted get-out-the vote campaigns. The Democrats have allotted $2 million to register Hispanic and other minority voters, hoping to shake them out of their political torpor. And the Republicans are focusing on the newly affluent professionals and suburban residents.

Leo Estrada, a demographer at the University of California in Los Angeles, said the Democrats must role up a huge margin among Hispanic voters in the Los Angeles area to offset the lead held in the rural andsuburban areas of this state, which are heavily Republican and conservative. And, according to Richard Santillan, a political scientists at California State Polytechnic University at Pomona, who has been watching the Republican efforts, says there is disenchantment with Reagan Administration among Hispanic voters because of what it sees as ”false promises” on Federal appointments. Bad Press for Bush

Moreover, Mr. Bush recently received unfavorable publicity in the Spanish press after a visit to Garfield High School in Los Angeles, home of Jaime Escalante, the teacher who inspired the film ”Stand and Deliver” and who urges students to go to college. According to the news accounts, Mr. Bush implied that Mexican-Americans were needed as laborers and could bypass college, saying ”We need the people who do the hard physical work in our society.”

”It represented a stereotypical view,” said Larry L. Berg, director of the Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California.

Nonetheless, he noted: ”Among Hispanics, I’m seeing some shift away from the Democrats. They’ve taken them for granted. But parties are going to have to pay attention to them.”


Apr 10, 1986, Jeffery A. Perlman — Los Angeles Times

Eileen Padberg was sitting in her Costa Mesa office last December when the phone rang and a voice said, “Eileen, this is Clint Eastwood.”

“My immediate response was to tell him, ‘Hey, there’s something I’ve got to get off my chest before you go any further: Go ahead and make my day,’ ” Padberg recalled.

He did.

Eastwood hired Padberg to manage his campaign for mayor of Carmel, a race which he won handily Tuesday amid all the hoopla and hype of an old-fashioned Hollywood movie premiere.

After flying back from Carmel Wednesday afternoon, Padberg reflected on the four-month mayoral race and decided it was the “highlight” of her career “because it was so much fun.”

Padberg, who moved to Orange County from Philadelphia in 1957, began her political career by stuffing envelopes for Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential campaign. Subsequently, she ran a county supervisor’s campaign and worked as a legislative analyst for the Orange County Employees Assn. in the early 1970s.

Padberg’s successes include former Nevada Gov. Robert List’s 1978 campaign, plus the election and reelection victories of Orange County Sheriff Brad Gates, state Sen. John Seymour (R-Anaheim), Supervisor Thomas F. Riley and Dist. Atty. Cecil Hicks.

She also managed the successful 1982 campaign to defeat a statewide bottle-deposit measure, turned aside a 1984 effort in Santa Barbara County to block a new offshore oil pipeline, defeated a 1980 statewide anti-smoking initiative and in 1984 secured Arizona voters’ adoption of a health care cost-control initiative.

But she has also known defeat.

Padberg and partner Robert Nelson, a former Board of Supervisors aide, ran the unsuccessful campaign two years ago to block San Francisco’s anti-smoking initiative. They also managed the failed 1984 effort on behalf of Proposition A, a 1-cent sales tax for transit projects rejected overwhelmingly by Orange County voters.

The Proposition A defeat was her most disappointing campaign experience, Padberg said, because “I knew that it (the measure) was the right thing. I still do.”

Padberg said she wishes she could have run the Eastwood campaign “for free. . . . Clint was the best candidate I’ve ever worked with. . . . He decided he had hired good talent, and he went with it.”

Padberg said Eastwood paid Costa Mesa-based Nelson-Padberg Communications $18,000 for running his campaign. But with so many political consulting firms out there, why did Eastwood choose Padberg’s company?

According to Padberg, she had an inside track, explaining that she has known Eastwood since they were both active in one of former President Richard M. Nixon’s campaigns. Also, former Nixon speechwriter Ken Khachigian recommended her, Padberg said.

“My base for candidate clients comes mostly from among my friends,” she added.

Padberg, who serves as secretary of the American Assn. of Political Consultants, said Eastwood’s campaign posed special problems.

First, a preelection survey showed that Carmel voters were hostile toward any candidate with a “Hollywood image.” The same survey, taken in January, showed that 52% of the 287 respondents favored retaining the incumbent mayor.

Also, the town was so small (fewer than 5,000 residents) that voters could not be contacted about anything without word spreading rapidly, heavily biasing responses to various campaign polls and messages, she explained.

Another problem was that Eastwood’s base of support–mainly merchants angry with tough regulations on tourist businesses imposed by the incumbent City Council–lived outside the city limits and thus could not vote for him.

Eastwood also insisted that he must have a council majority to serve effectively as mayor, which meant that two Eastwood supporters had to be recruited to run for council seats and that Padberg had to handle their campaigns as well. Both won.

Finally, money became a negative issue, she pointed out. No candidate had ever spent more than $900 in a Carmel election, yet Eastwood paid more than $7,000 just for a preelection survey to assess his chances, even before deciding to run.

Padberg said that Eastwood overcame all of this, especially his negative “Hollywood image” as a rough, tough guy of little substance, by attending dozens of teas and coffees at homes throughout the area. This allowed him to personally meet virtually every voter who had been categorized either as a supporter or as “undecided.”

“It was a textbook case of getting back to the basics of campaigning,” Padberg said. “It worked like a charm.”

There was no use of campaign mail, partly to offset the money issue, and partly because Eastwood had no name identification problem among voters, she said. “Our survey showed that there was nobody who had not heard of him.”

Just as important, no out-of-town news media interviews were allowed.

“The people in Carmel felt that the whole world was watching them,” she said.

Padberg also credited Eastwood’s use of an “actor’s trick,” which he suggested himself, for Tuesday’s victory.

“He sat down with me and said he knew he would have to repeat the same message thousands of times, which is what is required in political campaigns. And he said that he didn’t want to hear himself repeat things so often. He was already getting tired of it. So he said to me: ‘I’ll use an old actor’s trick and change the order and the emphasis (of the issues) each time.’ ”

The technique worked, she said. “The voters never tired of listening to him speak.”

Padberg said that she was as surprised as others to learn that Eastwood is not the “rough, tough” person portrayed on the screen and that he isn’t a male chauvinist.

“I’m an ardent feminist,” Padberg said. “Whenever I go to a party or social gathering, I always leave something of that there. I get my points across. With Clint, that was never necessary.”

Padberg said, however, that it hasn’t always been so easy.

She recalled that former Orange County GOP Chairman Tom Rogers once told her: “There’s no place for women in politics.” Padberg added that Nevada politicians were upset when she was hired to manage List’s 1978 gubernatorial effort. “They didn’t trust a woman, especially one from Southern California,” she recalled. “They didn’t take me seriously.”

Seymour, a state senator, said Padberg has continued to influence his legislative behavior long after the votes were counted on election day.

“She made me recognize that I needed to do something about women’s issues,” Seymour said. “As a result, I’ve introduced several measures that deal with things like rape, physical abuse and child care.”

Padberg said the best advice she has ever received came from presidential political consultant Stu Spencer in 1978, when she voiced doubts that she was ready to run a gubernatorial campaign such as List’s in Nevada.

“He said: ‘Geez, Padberg . . . you have nothing to lose,’ ” Padberg recalled. “If you win, you’re a hero; if you lose they’ll say it was an unwinnable contest anyway,” he observed.