[link to original on tumblr]
---&---
It might be a bit pedantic, but I'm in favor of "that" for things and "who" for people as far as relative clauses go. If you follow that rule, here, there's a "that" where there should be a "who." The speaker/singer is devaluing himself, which seems to go along with the other not-so-positive qualities he chooses to mention, like the "frost and debt and trouble" in the next line. Actually, having that second "and" there emphasizes it too. "Frost, debt, and trouble" would be understandable, but "Frost and debt and trouble" has an insistence because of that repeated "and" (although meter and/or syllable count for the line might figure into that too).