AH, THE majesty of Wednesday’s prime-time presidential primary debate on ABC.

The dignified questioners, wise in the ways of Washington, firmly steering the candidates through an informative discussion of the momentous matters confronting the nation.

The hallowed words of the US Constitution framing the proceedings, reminding viewers of the gravity of it all. The thrilling sense of purpose in the air.

What’s that? You didn’t see it quite that way?

You thought, given the caliber of its questions, ABC might better have foregone solemn sentences from the Constitution in favor of some Britney Spears lyrics?

The queries from Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos actually brought to mind the epigram about the crazy woman who hoards colored rags and throws away food, you say?

Oh my my. Well, I’ll concede that, counting commercials, the first substantive question didn’t come until some 52 minutes into the debate, but that’s hardly ABC’s fault.

It wasn’t that ABC’s inquisitors wanted to highlight the trivial. They had to. You see, as Charlie and George explained, these are the types of things that are on the minds of voters. Or the kind of distractions Republicans may well bring up in the general election campaign.

That being the case, it would have been criminally negligent not to treat the audience to a relentless focus on gaffes and gotchas.

OK, OK, you may not care whether Barack Obama thinks his wrathful pastor loves America as much as he himself does. Or whether the Illinois senator wears a flag pin.

But concerns like that are apparently worrying many Americans. Or at least one Pennsylvanian that ABC found. You know, the one presented in video, asking why Obama didn’t wear such a pin.

So there’s no doubt it’s a truly important topic. Why, as Charlie himself told us, it comes up again and again when ABC talks to voters, and it’s all over the Internet. After all, can anyone be considered a real patriot who neglects that most basic post-Sept. 11 accoutrement?

No doubt it pained Hillary Clinton to see her rival pressed on these matters. And yet, she obviously understands the necessity of it - and indeed, the duty she herself has to help make sure her opponent’s possible weaknesses are fully explored. Like George and Charlie, she knows that the fact that Republicans could level far-fetched charges come fall makes it imperative that she give those things currency now. That, after all, is the sad duty of a candidate ready on day one to stay up to the wee hours to handle the 3 a.m. phone calls, even if they’re only from pranksters inquiring as to whether the White House has Prince Albert in a can.

Hillary, of course, had some difficult moments of her own. Responding to another of ABC’s video questioners, she had to admit that she had misspoken about landing under sniper fire during her March 1996 trip to Bosnia - and apologize for it. Stale that matter may seem, but let it go unexamined, and next thing we know Clinton will claim it was she, and not Wes Clark, who was subsequently appointed Supreme Allied Commander, Europe.

Still, at the risk of showing myself hopelessly out of the mainstream, I will grant you this: As essential as those questions all were, few of them number among my very top concerns.

Perhaps Obama ultimately will be revealed as nothing but a small-town-scorning, flag-pin-neglecting, former-Weather-Underground-nitwit-knowing elitist. And yet, what comes through is a smart and dignified candidate who occasionally even tries to move beyond political pabulum and give a thoughtful answer to a difficult question.

Myself, I would have liked to have heard a more detailed discussion on affirmative action. And of exactly what Clinton meant when she said any Iranian attack on Israel would bring massive retaliation from us. And maybe even of how the candidates would tackle the federal budget deficit.

But no doubt that’s why I’m not a network anchor or even a chief Washington correspondent. After all these years of covering politics, I still don’t have any idea what’s really important.