A clone is both genotypically and phenotypically simply an identical twin to the animal it originated from.
Theoretically, yes. Practically, and especially after numerous replications, I would think not. DNA is always subject to damage from extraneous outside influences (virus, radiation, certain chemicals, etc).
I have a fascinating book on DNA - "Unraveling DNA" by Maxim D. Frank-Kamenetskii. Dr. Kamenetskii is the head of the department of Genome Expression at the Institute of Molecular Genetics, Moscow.
He points out that DNA and it's replication code is far more complicated than a one-on-one "computer tape" analogy that has been popularized since the discovery. One certain effect is that bisexual reproduction introduces a sort of self-correcting mechanism which acts against the foreign influences corrupting the original sequences of the parent DNA.
I tend to wonder if cloning again and again would not be like copying a cassette tape over and over - with the result of losing a little fidelity each time the copy is made.
Anyway, as poster Cowboy points out - true "cloning" does not offer any real economic potential in the foreseeable future, so it is all probably a moot point.