Disagree. For several reasons:
1. If we banned every politician touched by scandal from competing in the race for President, we might not have any candidates left. Or we might have only one.
2. It would be a travesty of democracy to ordain that because someone "embarrassed" the country -- in whose eyes, is a good question -- therefore their spouse shouldn't be allowed to compete for the Oval Office. It isn't a high crime or misdemeanor to "embarrass" the USA. It doesn't necessarily disqualify you from the presidency -- not legally, anyway.
3. You might find Bill's disgrace a powerful reason for not voting for Hillary. That's okay. But if you want to ban her from running, or from winning if a majority of the voters support her, you might as well be a totalitarian Communist. You're trying to restrict the operations of political democracy. Shame on you.
4. IMO, what Bill Clinton did in his personal sexual life was obnoxious and embarrassing, and also really, really bad for the Democratic Party. But a lot of politicians from both big parties are guilty of the same kinds of sexual hijinks. What's bad about Clinton is that he was reckless enough to get caught.
5. Bill also did MANY things in office that were worse than his affair with Monica Lewinsky. They need our attention, not his sleazy sex life. For example:
a. He sold out the cause of human rights in China after promising in 1992 that he would penalize Beijing for the brutality of the Tiannamen Square massacre.
b. He helped a brain-dead, corporate-dominated Republican party to push through NAFTA in 1993, at the cost of seeing American jobs disappear as corporations rushed to invest in China. He did something very similar by pushing through the GATT treaty that established the World Trade Organization (WTO) a few years later. That was dumb.
c. Bill Clinton, maybe to shut up stupid right wing Republicans for awhile, also pushed through a "welfare reform" bill in the late 1990s that has pushed a lot of low-income single moms into severe poverty, with very little safety net remaining for them.
d. Clinton also supported the further "deregulation" of energy markets in a way that fostered the rise of Enron. Later he supported the deregulation of the big banks in the late 1990s by helping the brain-dead, corporate-backed Republicans to kill the old Glass-Steagall Act. Dumb, and bad for the US economy, maybe a corrupt favor he was doing for big Wall Street banks.
I don't much like Hillary because I hold her partly responsible for Bill's lousy political decisions. But IMO Bill's sexual adventures were only of importance to Bill and his long-suffering family. The fact that Bill was horny as a billy goat doesn't make him different from many politicians, and isn't reason enough -- in itself -- to reject his legacy.
NAFTA and the repeal of Glass-Steagall, however, ARE reasons to reject his legacy. If you blame Hillary for helping Bill to push through NAFTA and repeal Glass-Steagall, I don't blame you.
-- democratic socialist for bernie / however, I'll vote for Hillary if I have to, as a "lesser evil" compared to the crazy Republicans