President Obama has lost the country. Poll after poll confirms the American public has caught on to his false claim to be a mainstream centrist and, in the short run, there is little he can do to regain the trust he squandered.

Except for one thing. If he reversed course on giving civilian trials to 9/11 plotters, stopped giving terrorists extra legal rights and kept Guantanamo Bay prison open, Obama might be able to save his presidency.

It's the flip-flop most Americans would cheer.

Terrorism issues are fundamental to how the nation sees him. Large majorities want a military trial and oppose giving constitutional protections to Islamic fanatics and the damage to Obama's standing has grown into larger doubts about his values.

It's not just that his anti-terror policies are suspect. They are a proxy for defining him as an elitist more concerned with legal nuance and international opinion than with protecting America.

Paradoxically, that impact gives the policies outsized potential to help redeem him. And reversing course is the one silver bullet he alone controls.

Fixing any other big issue where the public has abandoned him -- unemployment, taxes, spending, health care -- will take time and require uncertain congressional action.

But ordering a military trial for Khalid Sheik Mohammed at Gitmo is something Obama can do in a heartbeat. Ditto for changing the policy that gave the Christmas Day bomber his Miranda rights after only 50 minutes of questioning.

Treating that case like a routine crime continues to hurt Obama and was a key factor in even liberal Manhattan turning against the 9/11 trial.

By switching sides on both, Obama would be offering concrete proof he hears public discontent. He would also show he is capable of correcting a major mistake.

All the president needs to do is tell Attorney General Eric Holder he's going in a different direction. If Holder balks, Obama should let him walk.

That's not a bad idea in any event. Holder's inept handling of the decision to put the KSM trial in New York City, just blocks from Ground Zero, was grounds for dismissal. He never asked the advice of Mayor Bloomberg or Police Commissioner Ray Kelly and looked like a first-year law student trying to defend the legal basis before Congress.

To this day, even as the White House is looking for other locations because of public backlash, Holder remains unrepentant. He told The New York Times that critics were guilty of "partisan motives and have used fear" to their advantage.

He told The Washington Post the trial forum or location wasn't "as important as what the world sees in that proceeding."

The world? How ridiculous, how . . . 2008.

Of course, Holder got that concern from his boss. Obama initially supported the New York decision and has defended civilian trials as necessary to convincing the world America is a nation of laws.

That fact is not in doubt to most Americans, and it's not clear why we should care so much what the world thinks. Will France protect us from the next attack? Will al Qaeda think better of us?

Most of Obama's anti-terror policies were a huge mistake, part of a wasted year spent chasing an agenda at odds with voters' concerns.

He's still trying to force-feed the country a health bill while unemployment is the big public concern. He throws money at every problem despite public fury at the mountain of debt he's creating.

That history suggests Obama's not likely to admit he's wrong about a 9/11 trial or other terror policies. In that case, he's doomed. Not even a president can win a fight with angry voters.

Advise & council: jail 'em all!

Quite a story in The Post about which City Council member would be the next one indicted in a slush-fund scandal. After the feds nailed Bronx Democrat Larry Seabrook, City Hall oddsmakers favor Maria del Carmen Arroyo, also a Bronx Dem.

She could be next, but I have a better idea, one that would lead to real reform.

Prosecutors should indict the remaining 50 members all at once and charge them with participating in a racketeering enterprise. That's what the council has become -- another mafia family.

The Seabrook charges follow a pattern. Nearly all members earmark funds in the budget for a sweet-sounding "community group" in their district, and too often the money ends up in members' pockets.

Sometimes they get a straight kickback, sometimes a relative or two is hired, and sometimes their payoff comes in large campaign contributions. It all amounts to the same thing -- a corrupt system that steals taxpayer money.

Locking 'em all up would save time and end the thievery. Who knows? A few days behind bars might actually scare a few members straight.

Gripe-a-lot gov has a whining personality

Gov. Paterson is something of a charming oddball, but his attempt to rewrite the playbook on how to win an election is absolutely dopey. He's trying to whine his way to victory.

After sitting silently while rumors of his demise swept Albany, Paterson emerged to angrily protest his innocence. He took his defense on a complaining tour of TV and radio, where he painted himself the "racialized, sexualized, hyper-sexualized and dissolute" victim of the media and unnamed political enemies. He left out the most serious charge -- corruption in awarding a contract for video slots at Aqueduct. Must have slipped his mind.

Political pros warn against repeating the negative, even in exaggerated form. As for repeating it for several days, well, the gov is in uncharted territory.

The idea hit bottom at a town-hall-style meeting in Queens, where he stood stiffly behind a podium on a stage and, after summing up the reports about him, warned "they are messing with the wrong hombre."

His mostly black audience, according to a reporter on the scene, was unmoved. Perhaps they trudged through the snow for a discussion about their problems, not his.

Or maybe they just don't like governors who play the victim card.

The times they are a-rearrangin' facts

It's a mistake when a journalist buries the news deep in a story. When a newspaper does it, you can bet the fix is in. The Friday Times reported on its poll about President Obama and Congress, and the key finding was newsworthy: Obama's approval rating fell to 46 percent, among the lowest recorded and four points below The Times' December survey. His disapproval rating jumped six points, to 45 percent. Readers didn't learn any of this until the fifth paragraph, more than 250 words into the story, and some key facts didn't make the paper at all. Instead, they got spin worthy of White House flacks, with the Page 1 headline reading "Obama Fares Better in Poll Than GOP." This is shameful. Obama's continuing free- fall is the biggest political story in the coun try. He and his policies are unpopular and, since he's not up for re-election, how he fares against congressional Republicans is of limited meaning. Among voters, he's losing a contest with himself. The Times knows as much. Pity it wasn't straight with readers.