"I was speaking off the cuff and I spoke inappropriately and I regret having made those comments." Jonathan Gruber, one of the architects of Obamacare, addressed the firestorm surrounding comments released on a video Monday where he claimed the language of the health care bill was made intentionally vague to fool the stupid American voters.

The conservative group American Commitment released a video of Gruber’s remarks made Oct. 17, 2013 where he implied that passing Obamacare was more important than being honest with Americans.

This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. Lack of transparency the huge political advantage And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to get the thing to pass. Yeah there are things I wish I could change, but I would have this law than not.

On Tuesday Gruber finally addressed the controversy, but only in the friendly confines of MSNBC. He was interviewed on the Ronan Farrow show:

Farrow: Another controversy Obamacare is mired in comes from an unexpected source, one of the law’s architects. A video of MIT economist and Obamacare consultant emerged online over the weekend. The comments are old but the viral furor surrounding it is brand-new. Take a look at this.

Gruber (video): This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. [...] Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. [...] And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass. [...] Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.

Farrow: Our friend Megyn Kelly at Fox and others have railed against Gruber’s comments in the past 24-hours. But is there anything to the controversy and what does it reveal about the obstacles Obamacare now faces? Joining me now is the man at the heart of the controversy, Jonathan Gruber. Thank you so much, Professor Gruber, for taking the time. So first of all, you haven't publicly commented on this so far. Do you stand by the comments in that video?

Gruber: The comments were made at an academic conference, I was speaking off the cuff and I basically spoke inappropriately and I regret having made those comments.

Farrow: But your point that you were making underneath the choice of words was actually quite nuanced. You were saying essentially, correct me if I am wrong, that due to political pressures, the language of Obamacare had to be somewhat opaque and lacking in transparency. Is that correct?

Gruber: This is something we see going back through the Clinton and Bush Presidencies which is that public policies that involve spending is typically less politically palatable than policies that involve doing things for the tax code. It would have made more sense to do Obamacare the way we did it in Massachusetts, which would be to actually give people money and offset the cost of their health insurance. That was politically infeasible and so instead it was done to the tax code. That was the only point I was making.

Farrow: Do you think the pressures politically led to language in the law that affected sustainability adversely?

Gruber: No, I don't. I think the pressures politically led to an incomplete law with some typos that led to the recent dramatic court case. I don't think it affects the sustainability.

Farrow: Well let’s talk about that case, the Supreme Court just agreeing to hear that challenge to Obamacare specifically based on the ambiguity of the law it seems. This issue in this case is whether the federal Obamacare exchange and not just the state run ones can offer tax credits to low income Americans. Do you think the somewhat tortured language of the bill opened it up to these legal attacks?

Gruber: It's not really tortured language, but just a typo. Remember this law, the law that passes on the senate version, was supposed to go to conference, and then when Scott Brown got elected, the Democrats didn’t have the votes to put it through conference so they had to pass the senate version, which basically had typos in it. And this is basically a typo.

With that answer Mr. Gruber seems to have been trying to fool the so-called stupid "American voter" once again.