When is a clone not a clone?

I have been deliberating further about why we have the technology to clone humans, yet no one has been 'officially' cloned. Before I proceed further, perhaps I should remind readers about the first unofficial human clone, Dr Jose Cibelli. Since then, there are a few other unsubstantiated sources that claim that a human has been cloned. It is possible, I suppose, that people might wish to keep the fact that they have been cloned a secret; which might allow a more normal childhood for the clone - away from the prying eyes of the media, but I am not so sure that this sort of secret could be kept forever.

So, why then, have the superstars turned away from the promise of eternal life? One possibility, that was inspired by a picture of some dogs, occurred to me the other day while I was researching a new post. Now, I understood from the article that these dogs were clones. However, I could see differences between the dogs. I think this is the reason no one has cloned themselves. Scientists cannot yet guarantee that a clone would fulfill the dreams of laymen who actually want an EXACT mirror-image copy of themselves?

I have found an article called, "Does the perfect clone exist?" In it, Professor Peter M. H. Heegaard, Tina Rødgaard Højbøge and Anne Lykke explain that the differences between cloned animals such as pigs, can be the same as the differences between normal pigs. This means scientists have yet to perfect a cloning technique that guarantees identical clones.