I think the second-worst passage might have been this:
In an era when our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero-sum game. No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold. The traditional divisions between nations of the South and the North make no sense in an interconnected world; nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War.
There’s a lot of silliness and untruth in there. No nation “can” dominate another? (He said the same thing in Cairo, I believe). Really? Better throw out nearly every history book ever written. No balance of power will hold? That doesn’t sound like good news to me.
And worst of all: Alignments of nations rooted in the Cold War make no sense now? Really? I guess it’s time to disband NATO and our commitments to South Korea, Japan, et al. I mean, do these speeches get vetted for what they actually mean? Or is just all about how they sound?