1. It's impolite to just drop a document on someone and say "sign this now." If they're serious about this, they should have given it to you in advance of the meeting so you could have your attorney review it and could propose changes to the terms, etc.
2. It's stupid to use a 2-way NDA in this circumstance - now they're opening themselves up to claims from disappointed applicants that the applicants disclosed some magnificent secret which was misappropriated by the company, so the disappointed applicant ought to get $/equity from the company, even though they were never hired.
3. It's stupid to figure out that they want/need an NDA after you've already started the meeting.
From what you've described, I would pass on interacting with this organization in the future. However, I say that with the understanding that I've done, and companies I've worked for/with, have done stupid things, and it can be a mistake to judge an opportunity on the basis of a single brain fart. Maybe the VP was having a bad day, or totally misunderstood the situation.
As for the interview / candidate position itself: Is that what working for them is going to be like?
It is not widespread, but it is very much possible that the NDA was in fact required if you were discussing certain sensitive subjects that were vital to their business plan / product development / marketing / etc. It is also quite possible that they do discuss such subjects with other interviewees, and the VP didn't really know if you'd be included or not, so he made you sign it as a precaution. Just imagine yourself in VP's shoes.
In any case, it's not a big deal assuming the NDA was reasonable, and you are likely off in your negativity.