I have a great deal of respect for Drs. Cosby and Poussaint.  Also, I greatly appreciate them breaking the code of silence around some of the traditionally taboo Black community priorities they discussed. I am all for greater debate and then solution making. 
 
Obviously, there is a dose of reality in their comments and I look forward to reading the book.  Who can disagree with getting an education, loving one's child(ren), "fighting the revolution in our living rooms". However, perhaps due to the limitations of television and Sunday morning talk show formats, there is much truth left out of their narrative. 
 
Let me start by saying with all due respect to them both the generation of implication for most of the issues they raise is their own.  The patterns of father absence cited between 1954 (Brown) and today is owed to men of their generation.  What I am getting to is the notion of healthy two-parent families is greatly romanticized in America generally and, I am afraid, by these commentators.  The reality is many Black "baby boom generation" men failed there sons\daughters and grandsons\granddaughters.  Therefore, the conversation is not only with contemporary young men\women but also their peers who at least owe a debt of apology to the generations they let down.  It is as if they believe there was no comparatively no crime and poor child outcomes at the height of Black two parent family formation (ever see an episode of Good Times).  The matter is James died, in prime time and real time, both literally and figuratively.
 
Sure, I know the data on two parent families; and I grew up in one for most of my childhood and I am loving and engaged father (wish I could say it was because I grew up with a father who modeled such behavior).  An important question is how much "good quality" parenting were present Black men of their generation actually doing on a day to day basis?  If was so prevalent and at such a high quality what fruit did it bear? What are the implications of the unmitigated patriarchy for women? Children? Whatever the perceived magic there was in the bottle of two parent families, family formation has to be understood through the lens of equitable relationships between women and men not just the return of fathers to families for the sake of restoring patriarchal family formation because it is represented as the norm.  I think it does a disservice to displace the leadership roles Black women demonstrate, even when men were present, for the sake of looking more like the long disappearing two-parent American family. 
 
They are right in mentioning many Black women state a desire to be in married relationships with the father of their children (see Promises I Can Keep by Kathy Edin) but not under any old circumstances.  Black women, like other women in the free world, have choices including the option to raise children alone, even if it is much more challenging project.  If Black men of the commentators' generation want different outcomes for Black people, my recommendation is that they engage more men of their generation to help clean up the "hot ghetto messes" they helped create -- a consideration they never mentioned. 
 
Intra-group class tension, I imagine discussed more deeply in the book, is not given nearly enough due in their comments.  A tremendous, society-wide, gravitational pull toward greater individualism, the geographic dispersion of Black people, and the changing nature of racism and classism are weighty matters that warrant honest discussion with privileged and marginalized Black people alike.  As suggested by the excerpt shared by Eugene Robinson, Black people are not now, and as history instructs have never been since the first ship landed 500 years ago, a monolithic group.     
 
Personal agency ("responsibility") is always a weightier albatross around the necks of poor and marginalized people in a capitalist society because people with resources can "erase" their mistakes and poor decisions.  For example, I am not holding my breath for Massachusetts policymakers to propose legislation that addresses the societal threat Tom Brady (star quarterback for the NFLs New England Patriots) poses because he has now fathered, not one, but two children out of wedlock. However, ten years ago we all witnessed Congress pass and Bill Clinton (the "first Black" president) sign into law legislation intended to control the costly family formation habits of "welfare queens" and "baby daddies."  
 
It must be said that merit based arguments (frequently the frame for public policies) by far disproportionately focus on punishing and reforming the behavior or "deviance" of poor people and people of color.  In reality, the behavior of low wealth people could be characterized as a poor person's version of the actions of more privileged people whose behavior isn't legislated in the same way.  We also need to consider the possibility that people living on the margins may be electing to use their agency (or in commentators words "personal responsibility") to remain outside the American mainstream.  To those in the mainstream this may seem nonsensical.  On the other hand, it could be argued that continually trying to enter the mainstream, experiencing\witnessing only failure over one's lifetime and expecting a different outcome is insane. 
 
Regarding the comments on hip hop, nothing new here, more intergenerational moralizing. I would just say read the book of my close friend To The Break of Dawn, by Dr. Jelani Cobb to understand the Black musical ancestry of hip hop which reflects the same troublesome themes -- misogyny, violence against women, infidelity, etc.,  -- found in today's hip hop.  To be sure, the point is not to condone either; but rather, many of the stars of yesterday's Black music scene are, in this respect, no different than many of today's luminaries. If one, then all should be ashamed and equally chastised by the Black community, celebrating some and banishing others is simply an unhelpful double standard. 

I actually have nothing to add to that.