Or her follow up book called "Mao: The Unknown Story"?

"Wild Swans" is an incredible autobiographical story of three generations of women in Jung Chang's family. Her grandmother was the concubine of a Chinese warlord. Her mother was a member of Mao's army and physically went on the great march. Chang herself is now a scholar and writer married to an Oxford History professor in England.

Funny, I actually picked up "Wild Swans" after reading "Living History" by Hillary Clinton, when she talked about it as a book that she respected. I had forgotten that until today. It's good for me to remember something nice about Hillary Clinton since I'm currently frustrated by her campaign.

But Wild Swans is extraordinary. I recommend it to anyone. It changed my view of China completely--and I had visited China as an English teacher in the mid 1990's. Mao was not a good man, even early in his life, as Chang's second book lays out his personal autobiography, as well as the history of China during his rule.

I give Clinton full credit for her frontal assualt. However, there's little substance to most of her claims. She says:

"Now, over the years, you've heard plenty of promises from plenty of people in plenty of speeches. And some of those speeches were probably pretty good. But speeches don't put food on the table. Speeches don't fill up your tank, or fill your prescription, or do anything about that stack of bills that keeps you up at night," Clinton said. She continued:

I'm tempted to think of the speeches her husband gave, that sold out workers who lost their jobs due to NAFTA or to welfare reform without proper provisions for the poor. She also voted in favor of many trade agreements while in the senate that may have helped to the loss of jobs and general decrease in wages and benefits.

That's the difference between me and my Democratic opponent. My opponent gives speeches, I offer solutions. It's one thing to get people excited; I want to empower you to live your dreams so we can all go forward together.

Sounds good to me...

There's a lot of talk in this campaign about what kind of change we'll bring. Well, change is going to happen whether we want it or not. The question is who will make progress.

A fair question.

My opponent says that he'll take on the special interests. Well, he told people he stood up to the nuclear industry and passed a bill against them. But he actually let the nuclear industry water down his bill -- the bill never actually passed. On top of that, the same company that watered down that bill lobbied for Dick Cheney's energy bill. And my opponent voted for the energy bill, with its billions of dollars of breaks for the oil industry. I voted against it.

Does she not expect voters to read opensecrets.org which state the millions that she is receiving from special interests? As for the Exelon story--this has been gone into before. Clinton supporters take her side of it. Obama supporters think it's mud throwing, and certainly no worse than many of her own concessions to special interests.

My opponent says he'll stand up for workers. He often talks about the plight of Maytag workers in his home state. But the union at that plant supports me because when 1,600 jobs were being lost, they say he didn't do a thing to help.

She lost me. Which legislation was it that she supported and he did not? How did she help the Maytag workers?

My opponent says he will cut healthcare costs more aggressively than I do. But as an independent analysis from the Commonwealth Fund shows, the most effective way to lower costs is to truly cover everyone. His healthcare plan doesn't. Mine does.

But cynics say it doesn't matter if Clinton can't get her health care passed. Obama supporters think he can pass his legislation. That's one difference. Also, she receives more money from insurance lobbyists than anyone in either party, which makes many people nervous about her plans to cut costs.

I was, however, glad to see that yesterday, my opponent adopted the goal of 5 million green-collar jobs -- months after I announced I would create 5 million green-collar jobs. I was also glad to see that he modeled his $60 billion infrastructure bank on a bill I cosponsored last summer to create a $60 billion infrastructure bank. Now, if only he would just copy my healthcare plan and provide coverage for every single American!

I hope he does too, to be honest with you.

So there's the difference between us -- speeches versus solutions. Talk versus action.

What action? Again? The only "action" I can find in this speech is a possible vote against an energy bill. And a health care plan that is only a plan so therefore doesn't constitute an action yet.

In all seriousness, while some may think that words are change -- I know that it takes work. You can't just talk about the special interests -- you have to take them on. I always have, and I always will ... That's how I measure my life -- not by applause or headlines -- but by whether I'm helping people.

But if your goal is not applause, Hillary, then why are you insisting on seating the Florida and Michigan delegates in order to add to your tally, however many Democratic party rules this violates? Why does this election matter to you so much? Does anyone here honestly believe that you need to be president in order to help people? If so a lot of doctors and nurses must be feeling pretty terrible about themselves, and no wonder our politicians walk around looking so smug.

A big speech and two differences between them: a vote on an energy bill and a health care plan. I'm afraid that Hillary is the one in an empty rhetorical pantsuit at this point.