No, it's kill Adobe's Flash, that makes multi-level sites that have only one URL, so you can't link directly to any of the site's sub-pages and always have to navigate your way (or tell others how to navigate their way) to where you want (them) to go.
It's kill Adobe's Flash that makes websites with fonts whose size and appearance you cannot change and whose text is not readable by screen-readers (accessibility fail).
It's kill Adobe's Flash that makes websites that you cannot copy and paste from.
It's kill Adobe's Flash that can be hideously CPU inefficient. Adobe would have you believe that hardware acceleration is a requirement for low CPU usage when decoding video. This is simply untrue. For small mobile devices, video decode in hardware is preferable as it maximises battery life. On computers with more powerful CPUs though, hardware acceleration isn't so important. For example, I watched the 720p version of this youtube clip
in my browser - CPU usage = 150%. Then, I downloaded it and played it with VLC (which has no hardware acceleration) - CPU usage = 40 to 50%. I have a 2.4 GHz Penryn Core 2 Duo.
Right now, some HTML5 functions may be less efficient than some Flash functions. But you need to remember that HTML5 is a nascent standard and over time competition between browser vendors will lead to faster and faster HTML5 renderers. Flash has existed for years so it's not surprising that Adobe has managed to optimise at least some of it.