The world is mad. (Various examples.)

Julian E. Zelizer, of CNN, asks: "Is Obama seizing the political center?" No, Obama is not. He'd have to veer pretty sharply to the left to do that. According to polls, the vast majority of the citizenry is concerned about job creation, not deficit reduction. A centrist would follow the people's will.

On economic policies, Obama has continually surrounded himself with moderate, market-oriented liberals such as Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner.

No, he has surrounded himself with immoderate, market-oriented conservatives such as Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner.

The president has continued President George W. Bush's policies that shored up Wall Street following the financial meltdown of 2008.

So following the example of George W. Bush -- the most extreme (and most unsuccessful) president of the modern era -- constitutes centrism?

Perhaps so. Now that the right is defined by the writings of Ayn Rand, Cleon Skousen, the John Birchers and other absurd figures formerly consigned (even by Reaganite Republicans) to the far fringe, where is the center?

During this year's debate over deficit reduction and the debt ceiling, Obama came out with a "Grand Bargain," a debt-cutting package that was far more dramatic than what was being discussed.

The move put him in an excellent position politically. He staked out a position as a deficit hawk, yet he did so through a deal he knew that Republicans were unlikely to accept.

No, he did not stake out a position as a "deficit hawk." Most people in this country have no idea what his position is or was, because perception is controlled by propaganda. If FOX and Rush say it didn't happen, it didn't happen.

Obama made the classic mistake of negotiating against himself. Even Dubya the Dumb was smart enough to avoid that error. At the start of negotiations, Obama made clear that Social Security and Medicare were on the chopping block. He took a Republican position -- and for what? He'll still be portrayed in the media as a high-tax liberal, so what has he gained?

Stupid. Unbelievably stupid.

Speaking of unbelievably stupid: Bernie Sanders' recent call for a primary challenge to Obama got some play on the conservative blog Hot Air. Dig the comments:

Lefties do NOT believe Obama is “too conservative.” How the hell do people keep falling for this sh!t?

Yeah. Right. "Hot Air" readers are your go-to guys if you want to know what "lefties" think.

And after all he has done since he became president, he is still not liberal enough for many leftist Americans. Scary, not Obama so much as those other Americans.

Wow. And just what has he done that was in any way "liberal"? He continued W's policies on TARP, tax cuts for the rich, Gitmo, and warrant-free electronic eavesdropping. His refusal to support a reinstatement of Glass-Steagal put him well to the right of John McCain, who sponsored just such a bill.

But to get elected, Obama had to have a bland, beta-male personality, and that’s what’s driving the left crazy. People like Bernie knew Obama was lying to swing voters in 2008 about being a moderate; they just thought he was also lying to them about being a beta male.

"Beta male..."? Huh? WTF?

I guess with right-wingers, it's all about their insecure male self-images. They see all of reality in terms of their dicks.

Socialist unhappy Obama isn’t pushing a “progressive agenda”?
Hmmmmmmmmmmm!… why do progressives cry foul when they’re called socialists?

Because righties have foisted upon the world an insane new definition of the word "socialist," one that would have had evinced a WTF reaction from every actual socialist from Robert Owen to George Bernard Shaw. Hell, today's rightists would have us believe that Ike was a socialist. Literally!

BTW In what world has O moved to the right? His game is smoke and mirrors, bolstered with bloviating.

I agree. He didn't move to the right; he lives there.

O’s Not communist enough for Bernie….

What’s scary is that the most liberal, the most socialistic and most communistic president America has ever had is TOO FAR RIGHT for Democratic congressmen.

Krugman rewrites history. In an otherwise good post, Paul Krugman writes:

OK, I’ve never won a tough election. But neither has Obama! The 2008 race was looking close until Sarah Palin and Lehman came along.

Actually, Obama did win a tough election -- the primary battle against Hillary Clinton. I suppose he deserves credit for that, if you can use the word "credit" to describe the filthiest campaign in Democratic history.

More to the point -- and this is difficult to admit -- but Palin was actually an asset to McCain. She was much better-liked then than now, especially by the Hillary voters, whom the Obots had been deliberately and systematically kicked out of the party.

On September 8, 2008 -- after the convention -- Gallup had McCain ahead 54-44. At the time, it was universally understood that Palin was an asset to the GOP ticket. Erica Jong explained Palin's appeal with this unlovely phrase: "White trash America certainly has allure for voters." That phrase was characteristic of the Obot campaign strategy: "Insult the electorate, all the way to victory!"

On September 12, 2008, the polls pegged the electoral college numbers at McCain 281, Obama 257. On that same date in 2004, Kerry was well ahead. And let's face it, 2008 should have been a gimme year for the Democrats, even before the Wall Street meltdown.

Progressives should have made an effort to win back female voters. Alas, Obots continued their strategy of "Insult your way to victory!" -- with most of the insults being directed at the Clintons and at women.

On September 16, 2008, the polls were looking very bad for Obama: McCain was catching up with him in New York. Talking Points Memo offered this classic analysis:

On the call, Stan Greenberg, who did polling for Bill Clinton in 1992 and now partners with James Carville to run the Dem polling firm Democracy Corps, gave a presentation to the donors that painted a somewhat bleak picture of the struggles Obama is having with aging white women in battleground states.

Translation: A lot of Democratic female voters would not forgive the insults lobbed at Hillary Clinton. They had been kicked out of the party. No way they would vote for Obama. Moreover, many independent female voters wanted to throw up when they saw all of those Obots wearing "Sarah Palin is a CUNT" t-shirts.

Nobody will admit this simple fact of history, but it's true: What we may call "the PUMA factor" was the only reason McCain chose Palin. Shrewdly, McCain hoped to capitalize on the fact that the Obots had alienated so many women. At the time, little was known about Palin; her rep as a tea party extremist came later -- in fact, she was then considered a moderate.

Progs (who cared more about expressing their Ids than about winning the election) kept piling insults on Hillary Clinton and on female voters -- even after Obama had sewed up the nomination. This was the most flabbergastingly stupid strategy ever devised. And it was the main reason why Barack Obama almost lost an election that any Democrat should have won in a landslide.

In short: Sarah Palin, just by virtue of being female, was an asset to John McCain. I do not enjoy making this admission, because I do not like Sarah Palin. But facts are facts. McCain was poised to win, and Palin would have been the reason for that win. If...

...if the Wall Street meltdown had not occurred.

Alas, the panic started on that same date: September 16, 2008. Bush's hapless response (tax cuts and an upraised middle finger to the evicted) tarnished the Republican brand even further.

Too bad voters paid more attention to their stereotyped perceptions of the major parties than to personal history. John McCain had warned about Fannie Mae's problems as early as 2006. Fannie and Freddie did not cause the meltdown, but they were part of the rot that had set into the system. In 2006, McCain said:

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

Barack Obama voted against the legislation. Worse: Newly-minted Senator Barack Obama quickly became the number two recipient of contributions from Fannie Mae. He also received massive contributions from Goldman, Lehman, and the rest of that crooked crew.

And now those same Wall Streeters who paved the way for Obama's victory, the same Wall Streeters who were happy to take government bailout funds, are decrying Obama as a socialist.

The world is mad. The world is mad.