Having a voice vote on such a contentious issue is stupid, and it seems to me like it was simply a case of Villaraigosa hearing what he wanted to hear.
In all fairness to Villaraigosa, it can be difficult to judge from a voice vote. A friend of mine serves as a parliamentarian for an association of blind people. They take voice votes, but respond "aye" for the yeas and the no vote. Apparently the noes sound louder.
That said, you are suppose to call for a standing vote on something requiring a 2/3 vote.
Still, really, we elect a person President, not a platform. If they disagree, so what? It's the president's decision that is important.
After the Bill Clinton speech no one is ever going to talk about this again.
Of course everybody will; it was the second story on NBC. They shouldn't, but they will.