What I've done in the past is to use an external battery box whose output cable is a "Y" cable with one straight-through path that I send to my primary audio recorder (like a Edirol UA-5/NJB3 combo, a Tascam DR-1, a Sony PCM-M1 or whatever other audio recorder I might be using) and the other path which I send through a specially built cable that includes enough series resistance to cause about 27 dB of attenuation when driving the input resistance of the external microphone input to the video camera. Additionally, I include a small capacitance across the resistor so that there is a capacitive attenuator that works against the shunt capacitance of the microphone input to the video camera and whose attenuation is also 27 dB. Your camera may need more than 27 dB of attenuation or it may need less than 27 dB of attenuation in order for it to record good audio. My cameras are all Sonys and they all have approximately the same sensitivity at the mic inputs, so I can use my attenuator cable with any of the cameras I have.
Then when I get a really great video recording, I'll spend the time to replace the video camera's audio with the externally recorded audio. If the recording is good, but not great, then I just use the audio that the video camera recorded. Frankly, in most cases, it's pretty hard to tell the difference between the two.
Chris's suggestion to use the CA9000 is a good one as long as you can get enough attenuation out of that amplifier to make sure you don't overload the mic input to your video camera. I think that is almost certain to be the case because I know other people who have used the CA 9000 with their Sony video cameras, some of which are the same models as what I use with my attenuator cable.