Best known for having served as the personal chef for Oprah Winfrey for 10 years, Smith has already cooked several times for the future first family, who lives a few streets away from him in Chicago's Hyde Park. ("They like delicious, healthy food," reports the diplomatic chef.) On election night, Smith prepared a private dinner for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and about 150 Democratic stalwarts at Art and Soul. Earlier in his career, he was interviewed by the Reagan administration for the top cooking job. "I was way too young back then," says Smith, age 48.

The chef currently commutes between Chicago, his home base, and Washington. Would he be up for cooking for Obama and kin? "I'm happy my name is even in the circle," says Smith, who shows off his bipartisan nature by casually mentioning having had lunch recently with Doro Bush Koch, the current president's sister.

Who would you like to see cooking for Obama's state dinners?

The one thing that doesn't make sense to me about this whole thing is what was Tom doing dating someone from Logan Tavern/Merkado/Grillfish in the first place? I mean, isn't that a little like Louis Menand dating Danielle Steele? Or Pauline Kael dating Michael Bay? (Don't get me wrong, Danielle Steele and Michael Bay are very successful at what they do and very good at their craft, but imagine how the conversation would go when Michael Bay has a new movie out..."So, honey, seen any good movies lately? No? Well, what should we go see? You know, I heard about this really good new movie that just came out. It's a provocative, insightful, layered post-modern hommage to a classic Hollywood masterpiece. Except instead of a dark, wild, disturbing projection of our deepest psycho-sexual fears and un-tamed longings in the form of a giant ape named Kong, it's got cars that turn into giant robots from outerspace...Whaddya mean you won't see it...You never want to go to ANY of my movies...I'll be on the couch."

Not that I'm jealous or anything, but if Tom really wanted to date someone in the restaurant business, would it have hurt him to at least call?

Says Yonan: "There is no agreement not to cover any of the Commissary owners' other businesses." The only agreement is that Sietsema will not handle any of the Post's future coverage of EatWell DC's restaurants.

So why did Winer think the Post had agreed never to review his places again? I don't know. But I have a call into him. More as I know it.

UPDATE (2:14 P.M.): Winer called back to say he wasn't interested in continuing the war of words. Here's what he would allow: "I never spoke to Joe Yonan, and that's the fact of the matter." Winer also said that, from the beginning, he had only one issue with the Post: "My sole problem in all of this is a conflict of interest," Winer said, "nothing more."

Scorn in the U.S.A.

I have only one comment after picking at an overcooked cheeseburger, a limp croque-monsieur, and a dry, flavor-challenged margherita pizza at the Commissary, the new flag-waving haunt in the old Merkado Kitchen space at 1443 P St. NW (202-299-0018): The economy's gonna have to get a lot worse before I dine regularly at this cheap-eats spot.

I specifically want to highlight the time frame of my original jab at the Commissary---mid-October, well before Sietsema's piece. Earlier today, EatWell DC partner David Winer, one of the owners of the Commissary, said he fears retribution from the "covey of restaurant food critics" who, for all he knows, may "have coffee together." Winer may well view this posting as a sympathetic pat on the back to Sietsema, but I offer it up as evidence that a conflict of interest does not inherently mean that the original criticism was unfounded. I understand Winer's frustration, but I'd encourage him to look at his food as much as the critic reviewing it.

This is a tough standard, and I stand solidly behind Tom on this one (while at the same time understanding the Post's decision). Perhaps he should have mentioned a disclaimer, but from what I know about Tom Sietsema, he is professional enough to remain objective, regardless of any potential conflicts of interest, actual or perceived. He's done it in the past with Breadline, Stoney's, etc., and from where I view things, he's maintained extremely high integrity, year after year. I'll come right out and say that I've dined with Tom in the past where he is recognized (and fawned over), and it did not affect his reviews in any way that I could see. Ever since I became forum host at eGullet, I've used aspects of his approach as models for my own behavior, and these remain in place to this very day.

Your turn: What do you think about Sietsema's mini-review and the Post's retraction?

Critic Tom Sietsema should have recused himself from reviewing the Commissary, a restaurant featured in the Oct. 29 Food section. He and one of the restaurant's owners had earlier had a personal relationship. The Washington Post regrets that he reviewed this restaurant, and will remove the review from its online archive.

When contacted on Monday, EatWell DC managing partner David Winer said he didn't want to comment any further on the matter. "I can't be party in the destruction of another human being," Winer said during our brief phone conversation. He said he had hoped to keep this ugly situation out of the media, which is why he didn't send me (or other members of the local food media) the letter that he e-mailed to the 5,000 members of the EatWell DC mailing list. I told him that I had received a copy of the letter and would run it. Winer agreed that, at this point, the letter was essentially a public document. It runs below the jump.

To our many supporters:

In last Wednesday's Washington Post Food Section, under Tom Sietsema's First Bites column, an article appeared about Commissary, our newest restaurant. Some of you may have read it and been as shocked as we were. It was not an objective, unbiased and informed article as it should have been. Instead it was a biased and vitriolic rampage. We believe Mr. Sietsema used his column as a missile launch for economic assassination against Commissary, as retribution for some perceived wrong against him.

Mr. Sietsema never disclosed, apparently including to his editors, a previous, very close personal relationship with one of our principals. A relationship that ended abruptly and seemingly left him bitter.

We challenged Mr. Sietsema on his grievously negative assertions, his lack of disclosure and the simple fact that the article should never have been written. We insisted that recusing himself was the only proper and ethical thing to have done. He apologized for not recusing himself, nothing more.

All this was then turned over to his editor, Tom Shroder of The Washington Post Magazine. Mr. Shroder, understanding the ramifications of Mr. Sietsema's actions offered a settlement; kill the story on the web immediately, print a retraction in Sunday's paper, and that neither Mr. Sietsema nor any member of The Washington Post food team would ever write about any Eatwell DC restaurant again. What they would not do is apologize for the harm caused by Sietsema's spurious comments. "The Washington Post doesn't apologize" but "we will say we regret".

In Sunday's Post, at the bottom of page two, under Editor's Note, the retraction appeared. The Editor's Note is copied below.

We at Eatwell DC stand behind the quality of the food and beverage in all our restaurants. We stand behind the many employees who prepare, serve and cleanup your meals. We stand behind the many investors who have placed their money and faith in our hands. Most importantly, we stand behind our customers and do our utmost to never let you down.

We thank you all for your past patronage and hope you'll allow us to serve you for many years to come.

Sincerely,

David Winer, Managing Member

Antonio Oquendo

Joshua Hahn

I asked Winer if the agreement worked out with the Post doesn't, in fact, hurt his restaurants. After all, the city's largest and most influential newspaper would no longer be reviewing his operations. "No," Winer responded, "because I feel potential retribution down the line exists. For all I know, there is a covey of restaurant food critics who have coffee together."

The agreement means, of course, that Post readers will have to look elsewhere for commentary on all of EatWell DC's restaurants, which include The Heights, Grillfish, and Logan Tavern.

Sietsema, when contacted for comment, e-mailed that, "As much as I would LOVE to share the details, I've been advised not to respond to media inquires, and I have to honor that."

For a long minute, there's no one to welcome me at the host stand. At the table, it takes seemingly forever to get a drink. Then, in the middle of explaining a dish, my bored-looking waiter is interrupted by the maitre d', who whispers something in his ear while my companion and I wait. Throughout a recent dinner at what used to be a four-star experience, an unmistakable joylessness courses through the fading underground dining room that bears the name of one of the country's most esteemed chefs.

Well, yesterday, I had a chance to talk to Mel Davis, PR coordinator for Richard and Citronelle, and she said the big man took it hard. "How would you expect?" Davis says. "It's a blow, but it's a blow that we're paying attention to. It's the kind of feeling of being hurt..."

Richard had no heads-up about the star shaving, so he read about it along with everyone else when the dining guide came out on Oct. 12. "It was very sad" on that Sunday, Davis says. "We were all very sad."

As you might expect, Richard and crew have taken the slap as an opportunity to look at all points of service. They're asking themselves all sorts of questions, Davis says. How did this happen? What time did Sietsema visit? And how many people were working at the time? They've also invested in some remedial wait staff training, and they're already interviewing for another host position to make sure the stand is never, ever empty again.

But has anyone been fired over the star docking?

"Oh, no," Davis says. "We're all in it together, and we'll fix it together."

Whatever you think of Bruni---and he has enough detractors, it seems, to fill Madison Square Garden or at least paper the place with response ads---I think he handled these questions with the kind of intellectual finesse that you rarely find in chats and online boards. I was particularly interested in how Bruni would deal with the question of his qualifications, which, in terms of pure culinary training, are thinner than Mary-Kate Olsen.

Says Bruni:

I received a number of questions like the two above. They echo similar questions I’ve received on occasion over the last four and a half years.

And while I think they’re utterly fair, they surprise me somewhat, only because I don’t get the sense that readers expect or demand that a television critic has worked in TV, that a rock music critic has a background in songwriting and an ability to play the electric guitar, that a book critic be a graduate of the Iowa Writers Workshop. So why should a restaurant critic have been in the restaurant business or attended culinary school?

I’m not saying that those experiences — that such a background — might not indeed help give a critic more insight, better perspective. And I’m certainly not advocating a know-nothing approach.

But for the sake of argument, might not too close an association and identification with the restaurant business — with what goes on in a kitchen and what the challenges of service are — actually hinder a critic? Or at least make the critic a less tough-minded advocate for the dining public?

The critic, in my view, is writing more, much more, for the restaurant-goer than the restaurant-maker — the report card that a restaurant gets isn’t meant primarily for the restaurant. And the critic is primarily judging the finished product, not the messy process that leads to it.

What I think both of you readers/questioners are getting at, and what I certainly agree with, is the importance of knowledge and awareness. And you’re implying that there’s probably no better way to get knowledge than to have done similar work oneself.

That may well be true, but critics — of restaurants, of plays, of movies — need additional skills that someone whose primary credentials are cooking school or theatrical design or cinematography class might not have. They need to be able to write quickly and accurately and with a level head and with enough life experience to see what’s being critiqued in a wider context.

And knowledge of the profession being criticized can be acquired in ways beyond experience in it.

That's a pretty fine response, though I think Bruni's argument relies a bit too much on an antagonistic black-and-white, self-created world in which writers are independent thinkers and trained toques are slavishly devoted to their profession. I mean, can't someone attend cooking school without becoming a shill for the entire profession?

I also learned that Bruni will eat just about anything except "most reptiles" and bugs. ("It just grosses me out — I can't get around the idea of it — and, lucky for me, it doesn't come up that often in Manhattan restaurants.") And I learned that Bruni doesn't hobnob much with his fellows critics around the country, save for a few, including Tom Sietsema from the Washington Post.

I don't know most other big-city critics at all, with two exceptions. I'm friendly with Tom Sietsema of The Washington Post — no relation to Robert Sietsema of The Village Voice — and I have enormous respect for the seriousness with which he approaches his work. Washington Post readers are very lucky.