But due to my age, was thinking of going half into their dividend ETFs and at 65 going all to the dividend ETFs for more safety and income.
Where did you get the idea that dividend-focused stock funds offer more "safety" than a simple total stock market fund? That is incorrect. Vanguard lists VIG, VYM (the dividend funds) and VTI (total stock market fund) equally (as a "4") on their 1-to-5 "Risk Potential" chart. And within that rough range, at least VYM is likely to be *more* volatile than VTI.
Your asset allocation and investment choices should be based upon your risk tolerance, not your cash income needs. When you need cash, dividends are irrelevant. Sure, take 'em if your portfolio is producing them, but if it's not, just sell some shares. No big deal. It's called
total return investing, and it's the optimal approach.
Even if you did insist on the sub-optimal dividend-only approach, dividend-focused funds don't even help that much. VIG, yielding 2.02%, isn't appreciably different than VTI's 1.80% (VYM's 2.81% is a bit more significant at least).
The purpose of bonds in your portfolio is not actually to provide income. It's so that you have something positive to cling to and don't panic and sell your stocks during a stock market crash. Replacing those bonds with stocks will leave you with nothing to cling to. So figure out how comfortable you'd be in a stock market crash if 100% of your portfolio was invested in stocks, and adjust your allocation to include enough bonds so that you'd be able to sleep at night.
And really, read that Vanguard PDF I linked above. It seems like it was written exactly with you and this thread in mind.