In a speech in Los Angeles yesterday, John McCain adopted a more conciliatory tone regarding U.S. global leadership than we have heard from his campaign to date, much less from the Bush administration. Is he merely posturing to avoid scaring away independents and wavering Democrats, or is his approach in fact more nuanced and interesting than his tough guy image might suggest?

There was much in McCain's speech that could just as easily have been said by Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama:

-- "I detest war . . . only a fool or a fraud sentimentalizes the merciless reality of war."

"Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want . . .When we believe international action is necessary, whether military, economic, or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them."

"I believe we should close Guantanamo and work with our allies to forge a new international understanding on the disposition of dangerous weapons under our control."

McCain also noted that "China and the United States are not destined to be adversaries," and called for steps to eliminate malaria in Africa.

Most interestingly of all from my perspective, McCain uttered the words "nuclear disarmament," in a section of the speech that is worth quoting in detail:

"We also share an obligation with the world's great powers to halt and reverse the proliferation of nuclear weapons . . .We should work to reduce nuclear arsenals around the world, starting with our own[emphasis added]. Forty years ago, the five declared nuclear powers came together in support of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and pledged to end the arms race and move toward nuclear disarmament. The time has come to renew that commitment. We do not need all the weapons we have currently in our arsenal. The United States should lead a global effort at nuclear disarmament consistent with our vital interests and the cause of peace."

There are three key issues here: 1) Does McCain mean what he is saying?; 2) Does it matter? and 3) How will his kinder, gentler rhetoric be perceived by independent voters?

On question one, my sense is that McCain may well be serious about at least some of what he said in the Los Angeles speech. On the question of nuclear disarmament, for example, he can draw considerable political cover from the fact that a growing, bipartisan movement of former government officials and other foreign policy influentials have rallied behind the call of former secretaries of state George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former defense secretary of defense William Perry, and former Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Sam Nunn for "a world free of nuclear weapons." The real question is what concrete steps McCain would endorse to get there, and what other values and interests might override his commitment as events unfold. In addition, one wonders how he would restore the trust in the United States internationally that would be a prerequisite for paving the path to genuine disarmament.

Likewise, closing Guantanamo is consistent with his historic position against torture (although not with his more recent vote to let the Bush administration off the hook on one of the central moral issues of our time). Pledging to expend resources on eradicating malaria in Africa is not out of line with the Bush administration's decision to expand funding for dealing with HIV-AIDS there. And arguing that China is not automatically destined to be a U.S. adversary is consistent with the fact that the U.S. and Chinese economies are so intricately intertwined and interdependent that Washington may not be able to afford idle sabre-rattling against Beijing. All of which is to say that there appears to be a stronger strain of realism in McCain's thinking on foreign policy than has been the case for Bush and his neo-con advisors (a contrast most stark before hawks like John Bolton, Donald Rumsfeld, Douglas Feith and others of their persuasion left -- or were pushed out of -- the administration).

As for question two, whether or not McCain believes in some of the more reasonable assertions made in his Los Angeles speech may not matter unless he changes his positions on Iran and Iraq. While he is no longer singing "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" at campaign stops, on a certain level he might as well be. McCain still implies that Tehran may be among those regimes that might share nuclear weapons with terrorists because "they share with terrorists the same animating hatred for the West, and will not be placated by fresh appeals to the better angels of their nature." These do not sound like the words of a man who wants to negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program.

A particularly troubling passage in McCain's speech was his repetition of that old canard that a nation state that had gone to the trouble and expense involved in develping nuclear weapons would turn around and hand them to a terrorist group whose use of these systems could not be predicted or controlled. This is an extremely unlikely scenario, far less probable than the idea that a terrorist group might buy or steal weapons or bomb-making materials from a major nuclear weapons state like Russia. Yet McCain's speech was silent on the issue of increasing funding to dismantle and secure "loose nukes" and nuclear materials in Russia.

As for Iraq, McCain's tune hasn't changed. In the extremely unfortunate event of a McCain presidency, he'll have "surge, surge, surge" unless Congress takes the funding away. And in the extremely unfortunate event of a McCain presidency, it's hard to see why Congress would have any more backbone on this matter than they have during George Bush's lame duck period, absent a larger, more concerted campaign of public pressure than we have seen of late. If he were to "stay the course" in Iraq, all his fine words about cooperation and being willing to "be persuaded by others" would go out the window, even the costs of the war in U.S. and Iraqi lives and U.S. tax dollars continued to mount.

It is precisely for this reason that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama must continue to hammer McCain on the war, and, following Obama's lead, make the link between the hundreds of billions being wasted there and the lack of funds to address pressing needs at home. They should also be clearer about the dangerous implications of not negotiating with Iran (including the increased likelihood that Tehran will get nuclear weapons). If they don't do this -- early and often -- McCain may get away with persuading some significant cohort of independent voters to buy the idea that he is reasonable and realistic. And that could be extremely painful come November.