Barrett's interest in reform also extends to Beacon Hill itself, where the Cambridge politician earned the reputation as "the thorn in Bulger's side."

Barrett has frequently sparred with State Senate President Bulger on proposed political reforms. But Barrett denies that his relationship with Bulger is antagonistic. Rather, Barrett simply says the odd couple "disagrees very much on the future of the Democratic Party."

Bulger is "not an evil man at all," says Barrett.

Nevertheless, the Cambridge legislator says he considers Bulger's leadership style tightreined.

"The problem is that you have a system that requires a certain degree of passivity on the part of the rank and file," Barrett says of the senate hierarchy. He criticized Bulger's "top-down management style that runs contrary to all the precious thinkings about leadership."

In order to curb Bulger's influence, Barrett joined a game of power politics when he actively campaigned to block the re-election of Bulger's leadership team during the months before the in-house elections in January. In his letter-writing campaign, he asked colleagues to withdraw support for Bulger. Barrett's challenge posed perhaps the greatest threat to what the Globe called "Bulger's 12-year hegemony in the senate."

`Bubbling With Ideas'

Barrett says that under the leadership of Bulger, junior members of the legislature have been cut off form authority. And Barrett says this style of management stifles creativity.

"The senate has not been bubbling with ideas. It hasn't been up to the challenge of rebuilding the public faith in government," Barrett says "And I think we can do much, much better."

Barrett failed in his bid to block Bulger's re-election to the senate presidency. But Barrett and Sen. Lucile Hicks (R-Wayland) were successful in their efforts to limit the unilateral power of both Bulger and Senate Minority Leader David Locks (R-Sherborn) to appoint committees and immobilize legislation before it ever reaches the senate floor.

Although his attacks on Bulger are often seen as a futile attempt to redesign an established part of the political landscape, Barrett says his efforts have improved the senate as an institution.

"I think we've opened up the institution quite a bit," Barrett says. "People have been interested in covering the battle and have ignored the aftermath."

In part because of Barrett's efforts, the senate has guaranteed debates every two years on its internal power arrangements.

"I feel victorious, although no one has handed me a crown with a scepter or an Academy Award," Barrett says with a laugh.

But as Barrett sees it, his efforts to reform the Massachusetts senate are only part of a greater vision of American government.