OK, I read it (and it really doesn't take an hour, though I read fast). Here's a quote that summarizes Camejo's argument (or part of it):
"The two-party system is a self-correcting mechanism that shifts back and forth between the two parties, and within different wings of those parties, to maintain corporate political control. Loyalty to the two-party system is inculcated in the educational system, and our electoral laws are rigged to discriminate against third parties."
I'm no fan of the two party system and any criticisms anyone can assemble against it are worth study, IMO. He takes a tack that's the exact opposite of the "anyone but Bush" strategy that's so tempting in the short run and for that reason if no other the article is worthy of a look. Even if you aren't a Green (I'm not, I'm unaffiliated on principle), reading the first 3/4 of this paper can focus the malaise many of us feel going in to the 2004 election.
My own take on the political reality in America is this: we, the general public, have an extremely narrow (by design) view of the role of government, and of politics in the well-being of the people. The questions we are trained to ask and the the answers we accept are focused much too narrowly. We have no vision beyond the next six months, and no dialogue about the kind of society we want to build or we are building.
To bring up questions about the nature of the long term is cast as laughable. We've allowed ourselves to be cornered in survival mode where we get to choose between, say "jobs or the environment" or "free enterprise or socialism." These are ridiculously reductionistic pseudo-choices that effectively head off public discussion of perfectly valid alternatives that appear to threaten the balance of the existing business environment in service of long term improvements in many people's living conditions.
What's funny is George Bush is doing more to threaten that environment than the little Green Party ever will. When the world bank puts the US on notice that we're threatening the stability of the world financial system, you know they're trying to get somebody's attention.
So my first take on the article you pointed us to is this: the balance of the current US political and economic ecosystem is threatened by forces greater than the Green Party. So though I have no major disagreements with their analysis of the history of the situation I think the solution may take a different form than they envision. Perhaps I should restate that to say the consequences of the current reality may be such that the Green Party's solutions are ineffective or irrelevant.