Eh, you know, we are not her target audience. She's talking to the folks for whom "invest up to the match in your 401(k)" is a novel concept, for whom "no car loans longer than 3 years" is a massive lifestyle cut. If the average American followed her advice, they'd be much better off.
She is also conservative; IIRC, she has millions in bonds, so she can be confident that she will have sufficient income forever no matter what happens to the market. And, hey, she can afford to be; she doesn't require 8-10% returns to support her lifestyle, and it's not like she has multiple kids she wants to leave vast sums to. So of course she is focused on the downside risks -- and that's a good thing, because most average Americans err in the other direction and just assume that things will magically work out for them.
Her advice here pretty clearly comes from decades of being asked "can I retire at [55/60/62]?" from people who can't math -- people who see $500K in investments at 60 and think that's a huge number and so they'll be just fine with their $80K/yr lifestyle (or, worse, don't even know what their lifestyle costs). So, yeah, if you're not going to pay attention and do the work on the financial side, you'd better plan to work at your paid job as long as you can -- which includes, as she says, staying engaged and active to increase your odds of even having the opportunity to work that long.
Tl;dr: I don't see anything wrong with that article for its target audience.
