Ha! Okay, "specific" is the wrong word. They were both specific, each in his own way. It's more a matter of how each man presents the specifics.

McCain is direct, sometimes to a fault, whether by nature or by training (in the military, directness is acceptable and necessary). McCain can be too abrupt and blunt, and he has a kind of staccato delivery. What you describe as words strung together like popcorn and cranberries on a Christmas tree makes me think of a man who has been coached his whole career to alter his abruptness for civilian ears, as if by providing more explanation it will soften the bluntness. McCain's verbal awkwardness is much like George Bush's. Some people apparently find that style appealing.

Obama rarely answers questions directly or simply, rarely with a yes or no. Instead, Obama will provide the context surrounding yes or no, but leaves us to our own conclusions. He answers debate questions like a professor would teach a class. He's teaching us the answer rather than telling us the answer. Some people like that style best. Obama answers in the form of an essay; McCain answers like multiple-choice.

Conservative or liberal, people in Ohio want to know where a candidate stands, period. They will vote as easily for a Democrat as a Republican, but are suspicious of politicians who can't answer with directness (think Dennis Kucinich and George Voinovich). "Nuance" translates as equivocation, which is usually intended to deceive. In an extremely anxious time as the one we are currently in, Ohio voters want a no-nonsense candidate: someone who can perform surgery on the battlefield. I don't think Obama delivered a convincing message that he's the guy for that job.

Jay Cost wrote an interesting piece about the debate, comparing the pros and cons of these two different styles.