Whether or not you watched Obama’s twenty-minute speech in Ghana on Saturday, you’ve no doubt come across an article or two claiming to understand its significance. Indeed, the post-speech banter has quite possibly exceeded the pre-speech hype.

In his letter grading of Obama’s speech, Professor William Easterly assigns gapingly different grades to various sections in the speech, which leads him to suggest, “the speech seems to be written by different people with different views, which I’m sure it was.” Top grades go to messages about African agency, unified health care and bottom up change, while C’s, D’s and F’s are assigned to technological farming solutions, military intervention and the U.S. Africa Command, respectively.

Ugandan journalist Andrew Mwemba, writing in Foreign Policy, takes a different tack. “The speech captivated imaginations because it appealed to people's basic common sense,” he writes. “That is where its positive contribution ends.” While Easterly praises the mentality underlying Obama’s opening remark – "We must start from the simple premise that Africa's future is up to Africans” – Mwemba sees it as self-contradiction. The great hype generated by Obama’s speech, for Mwemba, upholds the flawed notion that solutions for African problems do not come from Africa.

Professor Chris Blattman follows Easterly’s grading formula, and arrives at a mix of A’s and B’s, with a lone D for Obama’s misguided approach to fighting corruption. Blattman’s economist views flavour his conclusion: “[Obama’s] roots and position give him moral authority approaching that of Nelson Mandela and Kofi Annan… But Obama can do one thing these elder statesmen cannot: open our markets. That statement was conspicuously absent from the speech. I hope it won't be absent from his term.”

Here at Governance Village, journalist Christopher Mason calls the speech a good start, but only just a start, and highlights sore spots like illegal mining and arms trade which taint Obama’s righteous tone. Blogger Texas In Africa likewise found the speech underwhelming. Meanwhile, NYT’s Jeffrey Gettleman, based in Nairobi, quotes a Kenyan anti-corruption campaigner who calls on Mr. Obama to “use his incredible bully pulpit” to pressure corruption reform.

For all the fervor surrounding Obama in Africa, there seems to be little coherence among the president’s critics. Looking at the issue of governance, for instance, Gettleman’s NYT article suggests that Obama would be right to assert his power in the aim of corruption reform. Blattman, however, argues that Obama’s clichéd anti-corruption line does little to address actual endemic corruption. Mwemba goes further by accusing the president of arrogance and neocolonialism, suggesting that Obama would be best to limit his engagement, to let Africa be. Obama’s strengths for one critic are his weaknesses for another.

Most articles contain at least some degree of praise for the man, and few are harshly critical of him – Mwemba’s article being a notable exception. But almost all of these articles leave their final positions undeclared. Time will tell, everyone seems to agree. As Obama the prophet is gradually reduced to Obama the person, Africa’s proclaimed son will increasingly be judged for what he does, not who he is. Stay tuned.