No, he did not. He explained citizenship correctly but citizenship of the candidate is not the issue of "natural born". Natural born refers to the birth of the candidate's parents, not the candidate.
The founders added that requirement because they feared a president might have a divided loyalty if both parents were not American citizens.
PLEASE reread what Jim posted:
In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e., not born to foreign diplomats or occupying military forces), even to alien parents, are citizens “at birth” or “by birth,” and are “natural born,” as opposed to “naturalized,” U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President.
People have come up with all sorts of nutty ideas over the past six years about this topic. I know it started in an attempt to remove Obama, but IT'S A DEAD ISSUE.