While Baudrillard is probably best understood as broadly "leftist" I think it's worthwhile to recognize that philosophy does at least attempt to transcend the most basic political dichotomies. It's worth it, in other words, to try to understand the work for it's own sake and what it is saying, rather than pin it down to one or another of a pair of binarizing tendencies that reduce and oversimplify reality; while perhaps providing a satisfying simulation of theoretical activity, we have to recognize that simply asserting left-or-right doesn't tell us very much about the philosophical content, at best hinting at aspects of its expression and context and so forth.
Curiously enough, Deleuze's work was often perceived as something of a mystery for leftists of his generation; and at the very least we can say today with historical distance that Deleuze's work does not really culminate in a clear political theory but emits a relentlessly 'nonstandard' politics of disconformity and exponentiation -- emphasizing aberrant movements of depersonalization and deterritorialization, underscoring the importance of minor literatures, etc.