GOP nominee Mitt Romney began his final weekend campaign blitz in New Hampshire Saturday morning, ripping President Obama for telling supporters that "voting is the best revenge." 
 
 "Vote for revenge? Let me tell you: Vote for love of country," Romney said to cheers. 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT 
 
 Obama made the remark at a Friday rally after supporters booed Romney. “No, no, no. Don't boo. Vote,” Obama told a crowd in Springfield, Ohio. “Voting is the best revenge.” 
 
 The GOP nominee jumped on the comment later that day, and his campaign released an ad attacking the president for it Saturday morning. 
 
 The Obama campaign said Saturday that the president's comment was made in the context of Romney's “scare tactics.” 
 
 Spokeswoman Psaki said a Romney TV ad running in the state that suggests Chrysler was moving production of Jeep models to China was an attempt at “frightening workers in Ohio into thinking, falsely, that they’re not going to have a job.” 
 
 “And the message he was sending is if you don’t like the policies, if you don’t like the plan that Gov. Romney is putting forward, if you think that’s a bad deal for the middle class, then you can go to the voting booth and cast your ballot,” Psaki said. “It’s nothing more complicated than that.” 
 
 At rallies Saturday in Mentor, Ohio, and Milwaukee, Obama again used his "don't boo, vote" line, but he did repeat the revenge comment. 
 
 The president did, however, attack Romney on the Jeep ads during the Ohio appearance. 
 
 “Changing the facts when they’re inconvenient to your campaign, that’s definitely not change,” Obama said at the rally in Mentor, Ohio. “But that’s what Gov. Romney’s been doing these last few weeks right here in Ohio.” 
 
 Team Obama continued to get questions about the “revenge” remark on a conference call with reporters late Saturday afternoon. 
 
 Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt did not repeat Psaki’s explanation that Obama was referring to the Jeep ads. Instead he said Obama’s revenge comment was just replacing his common “don’t’ boo, vote” refrain. 
 
 “If you disagree that we should return to the same policies that crashed the economy and devastated the middle class in the first place, the place to make your voice heard is at the polls, and that’s exactly what the president addressed last night,” LaBolt said. 
 
 LaBolt also took a shot at the Romney campaign for focusing on the comment. 
 
 “It’s interesting that that’s the closing argument that the Romney campaign is making. I think that it seems very small,” LaBolt said. 
 
 While Romney and Obama are deadlocked in most national polls, the president has held the lead in most swing-state polls, including those in every state Romney is visiting this weekend. While Romney's momentum following the first presidential debate seemed to be dissipating by the end of the week, to some observers it seems that Hurricane Sandy further stalled it — and gave President Obama a boost. 
 
 “If you hadn’t had the storm, there would have been more of a chance for the Romney campaign to talk about the deficit, the debt, the economy. There was a stutter in the campaign. When you have attention drawn away to somewhere else, to something else, it is not to [Romney's] advantage,” top Republican strategist Karl Rove told The Washington Post Friday night. 
 
 The president visited Federal Emergency Management Agency headquarters early Saturday before leaving for appearances in Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa and Virginia. 
 
 After a briefing and conference call on Hurricane Sandy recovery efforts, Obama said that his team was putting “120 percent” into making sure communities have the resources they need, adding that “there's nothing more important than us getting this right.” 
 
 More from The Hill: 
 
 • Medicare fades as ‘majority-maker’ issue for House Dems 
 
 • Conflict-of-interest concerns raised as Obama races to implement health reform 
 
 • GOP senators want new Select Committee to investigate Benghazi attack 
 
 • Senate Scorecard: GOP dealt serious blow in battle for upper chamber 
 
 
 
 Romney also touched on bipartisanship during his New Hampshire appearance. After criticizing President Obama for last meeting with Republican leaders in Congress in July, Romney promised to do better. 
 
 "You know that if the president were to be reelected he would not be able to work with Congress, you know there would be more gridlock… the president just can't work with Congress, he's proven that time and time again," he said. "We can do it, I've done it before. We're going to work in Washington to help the people." 
 
 Obama campaign spokeswoman Lis Smith said Romney has never worked across the aisle. 
 
 "Despite his claims in the final days of this race, Romney refused to work with Democrats as governor. And throughout this campaign, he has shown himself to be too weak to stand up to the far-right wing of the Republican Party – whether it’s Grover Norquist, Richard Mourdock, or the architects of Republican obstruction in Congress," Smith said. 
 
 Romney went further in an afternoon Iowa appearance, warning that the partisan gridlock that's gripped Washington the last two years will lead to more fights over the debt ceiling if Obama is reelected. 
 
 "There'll be a shutdown of government or a default. Can you imagine four more years of that?" he said. 
 
 Romney will also be in Colorado later on Saturday. 
 
 Romney also delivered the Republicans' weekly radio address on Saturday, touting his business experience and promising to kick-start the economy with his five-point economic plan. 
 
 "The question of this election comes down to this: Do you want more of the same or do you want real change? President Obama promised change, but he could not deliver it. I promise change, and I have a record of achieving it," he said. We need a real turnaround if we are going to get our economy growing and get Americans working again. And I’ve led that kind of effort many times before." 
 
 --This report was originally published at 12:26 p.m. and last updated at 6:47 p.m. ||||| Why was there a security failure at the consulate, and how did U.S. forces in Libya and outside the country respond to the emergency? The result is a host of unanswered questions. 
 
 The Post notes that what happened in Benghazi “increasingly looks like a major security failure” and argues, “sooner or later the administration must answer questions” about that failure and “the policies that led to it.” 
 
 Following a single background briefing, the State Department has mostly refused to respond to inquiries about Benghazi, citing an ongoing investigation by a review board. But considerable evidence has emerged that Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, who died in the attack, and his security staff were deeply concerned about what they considered to be inadequate security. Fox News reported this week that a secret cable described an Aug. 15 “emergency meeting” at the consulate, at which the State Department’s regional security officer “expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support and the overall size of the compound.” Fox reported that the cable, dispatched to Washington, said the emergency meeting included a briefing about al-Qaeda training camps in the Benghazi area and Islamist militias, including those that allegedly carried out the Sept. 11 attack. In another cable on Sept. 11, hours before the attack, Mr. Stevens described “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” with the local militias and police, to which the State Department had entrusted the consulate’s defense. Separately, according to a report on ForeignPolicy.com, Mr. Stevens may have dispatched a letter to Benghazi authorities, complaining that a policeman assigned to guard the consulate was photographing it on the morning of Sept. 11. 
 
 The Journal argues that the Obama administration has sought to avoid accountability by offering “evasive, inconsistent and conflicting accounts about one of the most serious American overseas defeats in recent years.” The editorial continues: “Unresolved questions about Benghazi loom over this election because the White House has failed to resolve them.” 
 
 Among those unanswered questions: “Why did the U.S. not heed warnings about a growing Islamist presence in Benghazi and better protect the diplomatic mission and CIA annex?” And: “What exactly happened on the day of 9/11? During the over six hours that the compounds in Benghazi were under siege, could the U.S. have done more to save lives?” And: “What was President Obama doing and ordering his subordinates to do in those fateful hours? Why has the Administration's story about what took place in Benghazi been so haphazard and unclear?” 
 
 These questions, and many others, need answers. The administration has managed to avoid providing them for nearly eight weeks, with a much needed assist from a suddenly lack of curiosity among the truth-seeking journalists at many of America’s most influential news outlets. Perhaps after the election that curiosity will return. ||||| In conservative circles, the closing weeks of the election have involved a full-blown scandal: namely, that the Obama White House has covered up what really happened during the lethal Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. The Obama Administration first failed to adequately protect U.S. personnel in Benghazi, this narrative holds; didn’t respond forcefully enough to save the four Americans who were killed; tried to deny that a coordinated attack occurred at all; and has concealed what the President and his top advisers knew about all this and when. “The Benghazi scandal” is how Fox News host Bret Baier referred to the story Thursday. 
 
 And yet Mitt Romney wants nothing to do with it. In the second presidential debate, Romney treated Benghazi as the most important national-security matter of the moment. But Romney sidestepped the issue in the final debate and, as far as I’m aware, hasn’t raised it since. It’s true that the topic blew up in Romney’s face in that second debate. But his sudden and complete abandonment of the topic has still been something of a mystery. 
 
 (PHOTOS: Political Pictures of the Week, Oct. 26–Nov. 2) 
 
 Now the story has taken a new twist, as Massimo Calabresi explains. It seems as through the most important actor during the attack may not have been the President, but CIA director David Petraeus. That leaves the story line more confused than ever. Petraeus, the reputed savior of Iraq, is a hero to many of the same conservatives who have been driving the Benghazi story in an effort to burn the President. Now it seems possible that their ire could burn the general more than the President. Although Friday’s reports indicate that the CIA responded fast and aggressively as the attack unfolded, it also appears that the agency could have been more vigilant about security at the site in advance. It also seems possible that Romney fell silent on this issue because he came to understand that Petraeus is at least as politically exposed as Obama. (Bear in mind that Romney was recently granted classified national-security briefings, as is the custom for major-party nominees.) 
 
 To be sure, Obama’s role in all this does remain frustratingly opaque. The White House hasn’t said whether the President was presented with any decision options during the attack, like whether to order drone or fighter-jet strikes in the area (although it’s far from clear that either would have been practical in a confused situation). It’s still not quite clear why the Administration blamed that infamous anti-Islamic video for the attack as long as it did, even as contradictory reports added up. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has taken responsibility in a broad sense for inadequate security at the consulate, but we still don’t know just how involved she was in that debate. And finally, if Fox News is right that special forces based in Italy were “told to wait” rather than deploy to the scene, we still don’t know who gave that order. (Note that former Pentagon big Paul Wolfowitz, who is no Obama defender, claims that a military team in Europe was in fact mobilized immediately but could not have reached Benghazi in time to save lives.) 
 
 These are all frustrating questions. And while an official investigation is still ongoing, the White House could be offering more detail without spilling secrets. “The Obama Administration needs to level with the country about why it made its decisions,” the Washington Post’s fair-minded national-security columnist — and frequent Obama defender — David Ignatius wrote this week. But it’s far from clear that the full backstory here amounts to the damning indictment of Barack Obama that some Republicans are intimating. Which may be why Mitt Romney doesn’t bother to mention it anymore. 
 
 MORE: House Republicans Go After the Obama Administration over Benghazi Attack
– Mitt Romney has stirred up a few headlines today over a little matter of revenge. Stumping in New Hampshire, Romney criticized President Obama for urging supporters to vote because "voting is the best revenge." Romney said, "Vote for revenge? Let me tell you: Vote for love of country." His campaign also released a "revenge"-themed ad. But The Hill reports that Obama made the remark yesterday to calm a Springfield, Ohio, crowd that was booing Romney. "No, no, no," Obama said. "Don't boo. Vote. Voting is the best revenge." The presidential camps are also exchanging volleys over Romney's auto company ad and the effect of Superstorm Sandy on the campaign. One subject that seems off the table: Benghazi security, perhaps because Romney doesn't want to expose CIA Director David Petraeus to criticism, writes Michael Crowley at Time. But two major newspapers—the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal—have picked up the slack by slamming Obama on the issue, reports the Weekly Standard.