Given a document, an entity and its sentiment towards the entity, verify if it is the correct sentiment towards the entity. Answer should be yes or no. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
--------
Question: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Joe III is Positive . The similarities between Joe Kennedy III and Donald Trump are  in a sense  obvious. Both are white men  northeasterners  teetotalers. They are products of the Ivy League and great wealth. They joined their respective family trades – real estate for Trump  politics for Joe III.
The differences are obvious too  and more illuminating. Joe III is a liberal avatar of American institutions: the Kennedy family  Stanford  Harvard Law. Self-effacing in person  he recognizes how easy his path has been – he only briefly served as an assistant DA before taking a House seat -- and had  until now  chosen to mitigate charges of nepotism by playing the part of diligent backbencher. The Kennedys  for all their famous faults  have the saving grace that comes from being in on the joke; when President Kennedy appointed his younger brother attorney general  he quipped that he was just trying to give Bobby some experience before he started practicing law.
The result is the great destabilization of the Trump era. Few  it seems  have a firm grasp on what is happening  let alone what might happen next. Everybody  regardless of their ideology  thinks they're losing. A realignment appears to be happening in our politics  but nobody can agree on what it looks like. "We all feel the fault lines of a fractured country " as  Joe III  put it in  his  stilted  awkward speech on Tuesday night.
There is  of course  an element of nostalgia in liberalism's newfound fondness for our institutions. Trump-era liberalism  with its emphasis on American global leadership and veneration of federal agencies and the mainstream press  would be easily recognizable to that first generation of Kennedys. And in that sense  it makes sense that  Joe III  would become a natural face of contemporary Democratic politics.
Tuesday night was an attempt to make  Joe III  a symbol of institutional resistance to Trump. To the question of whether the institutions are worth saving  and therefore capable of reform   Joe III 's answer is an enthusiastic yes.  He  is  in a sense  already a symbol of how  his  own family has repaired itself from its reckless  impulsive  and selfish ways;  he  seems serious   he  is sober. The message  he  sends is that  his  family   his  party  and all the other institutions that nurtured  him  still have an innate and positive utility  an essential role to play. Where Trump says the rot must be amputated   Joe III  promises that a strong dose of antibiotics is all that's needed.
Whether this message resonates among the Democratic rank-and-file is another story. While the liberal commentariat   Joe III's  natural constituency  remains fixated on norms and the need to defend institutions  a newly ascendant left sees civility as a neoliberal plot to uphold the status quo. And whereas  Joe III  and  his  ilk see Trump as an aberration  the left sees  him  as a symptom of a decayed political order  they  wish to abolish and replace.
Robert Kennedy once said that he wished he had been born poor so he could have been a revolutionary. As his career advances  Joe III might harbor a similar desire  if only because his party is increasingly moving in a revolutionary direction.

Answer: yes


Question: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Donna Brazile is Negative . Donna Brazile . (Joe Raedle/Associated Press)
On Thursday  former Democratic National Committee interim chair  Donna Brazile  made a surprising revelation: An August 2015 agreement gave Hillary Clintonâs campaign partial control of the DNC months prior to Clinton winning the nomination. The âagreement was not illegal â  Brazile  writes  âbut it sure looked unethical.â The news reignited a debate among politicos and activists over whether the DNC influenced the Democratic primary. Whether the primary was âriggedâ or just business as usual though  Brazileâs allegations are only the latest evidence of the Democratic Partyâs troubles  and why the party establishment is ill-equipped to solve them.
Start with something that  Brazile âs article doesnât touch on: the electoral record. At the federal level  Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress. The GOP House majority is at its largest in 70 years. Though two-thirds of the Senate seats contested in 2016 were held by Republicans  Democrats only gained two seats  losing races against very vulnerable GOP incumbents. At the state level  Republicans are at their strongest since the 1930s. Republicans control both the state legislatures and governorships in 24 states  compared with Democratsâ five. The GOPâs ruthless exploitation of gerrymandering â aided by its control of so many states â has helped increase GOP control  but much blame still lies with Democratic leaders.
Here is what you need to know about the political storm sparked by  Donna Brazile 's allegations against the Clinton campaign. (Amber Ferguson Melissa Macaya/The Washington Post)
Then thereâs the financial mismanagement. Money troubles for the DNC are hardly unprecedented  but the struggles appear to have worsened considerably in the past few years.  Brazile  says that the partyâs monthly expenditures had doubled in the previous five years  in large part because of former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and President Barack Obama keeping expensive consultants on the payroll. (Given Democratsâ electoral failures  what these consultants were doing is anyoneâs guess.) Of course  itâs in  Brazile âs interest to blame things on  her  predecessor. But a former senior party official independently confirmed the troubles to the Interceptâs Ryan Grim  adding that the DNC was unable to make payroll in August 2015 and was âapproaching the equivalent of bankruptcy.â

Answer: no


Question: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Jim Mattis is Positive . Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson testify about authorizations for the use of military force before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Oct. 30. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis also told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that any attempt to place time limits or geographical constraints in a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force could cripple efforts to fight terrorists.
Laws enacted in 2001 and 2002 gave the military the legal authority to fight international terrorism. Even though the United States is fighting groups that didn’t exist back then  including the Islamic State  the legal basis remains sound   Mattis  said.  He  urged Congress not to repeal existing law  at least without a new authorization already in place.
“The uncertainty accompanying that situation could only signal to our enemies and our friends that we are backing away from this fight ”  he  said. “It would stall our operations  immediately reduce allied commitments and support  and create significant opportunities for our enemies to seize the initiative.”

Answer:
yes