"A practical man can always make what he wants to do look like a noble sacrifice of personal inclinations to the welfare of the community. I've decided that I've got to be practical myself, and that's one of the rules. How about breakfast?" The Pirates of Ersatz, Murray Leinster

From your question I noticed a few things. Nominally, I completely agree with @mxyzplk's answer, so this should be in the way of an addendum.

It sucks to be the leader

In a RPG, it just completely sucks to be the leader. Most players when confronted with a plan, remember about fifteen percent of it for the first fifteen minutes. But they'll certainly remember when you deviate. Leaders get no additional responsibility and no perquisites, but they get all the blame.

In the military this is mitigated with the clear distinction between commissioned and non-commissioned officers. Not least because the isolation provides both support structures and necessary emotional distance (to a degree, of course). Being "elected" leader, especially with the pack dynamics of typical werewolf games is an extremely dubious honour that I'd flatly reject.

The fact that while you may be leader in character but not dominant over the player group makes things even stickier. You need to assert authority within the realm of the narrative without actually having that authority in reality. Again, something that will cause friction and resentment any way you cut it.

Depressing environments bleed emotions into play

The world of darkness does what it says on the tin. Having played in a horror game myself recently, the iconic themes of the world of darkness do not make for "happy" or, for that matter, validating game experiences in the main. (And, if they do, it's a violation of genre.) When you are faced with the stresses of being "leader" which are compounded by the stressors of the philosophies baked into the setting, no wonder you're having a rough time.

Some solutions:

On leadership:

Fundamentally, a gaming group is a relationship. Bad relationships that do not provide validation are a drain on mental and emotional resources. When they don't work, cut them off or change them. In your case, I'd play a game that's a bit lighter in tone and focus: a nice traditional dungeon crawl or similar heroic fantasy.

I'd also reject the leader role for all the reasons I outlined above. Or, if they force it upon you, demand the perquisites and authority that is concomitant with it: they can't have it both ways.

On the group:

I've found that group character creation creates a far more cohesive group. By having entangled backstories, the group can draw upon a deeper understanding of each others' characters, creating the basis for empathy and respect within the characters, instead of the necessary simulacrum imposed by players.

By articulating desired tropes, a "palette" (as Microscope) calls it, before the game begins, you'll be able to shape the narrative of the group in directions that you want to play. This allows you to avoid the nominally depressive tropes that come default with the setting (not limited to world of darkness) and describe a source for future characters to connect with the current group. Replacement characters, if they tie into the shared narrative, will continue to maintain the tropes and social trust.

Be practical:

As players, we shape our narratives to an amazing degree. Emulate Bron Hoddan in the Pirates of Ersatz. While playing, you will be aware of the desired practical outcome that will provide validation and satisfy your personal goals. With that outcome in mind, you then frame it in terms that suit both your character's narrative and the expected narratives of the other players such that they will act to reinforce your framing and thereby your outcome. If you fight their narrative control by "being a loner," it is difficult to achieve your own goals. If you help them work as a team and appear to sacrifice nobly on their behalf while executing your own goals... the entire process is smoother and more effective.

Note that I am not saying to lie. Instead, consider the causal constructions of your actions, the explanations for those actions to be an aspect of the role * separate* from the actions themselves. By manipulating the framing as well as the actions, you can provide the necessary hooks for the other players to support your version of reality, rather than rejecting it and, by extension, you.

Postscript

Looking at your comments to other questions, you should absolutely give this group two last tries. In the first trial (of one or two games), try a heroic romp where you can be "Big Damn Heroes." Require the players who need the spotlight be leader. In the second trial (again of one or two games), try a game where players can intrigue against each other (I'd recommend Ars Magica, but then again I recommend it for most things. Most games support PvP intrigue quite ably.) If neither game provides the validation you need and the spotlight the other players need, move on. Before you do anything, take a month break, sit down, relax, and try to game with some strangers. I'm pretty sure that if you go looking for games in the chat section of this site... someone will oblige. For more on the framing problem, I'd quite recommend Rule 34 by Stross, as it describes it in a delicious narrative context.

I hope they pass, and try to plot for them passing but I feel like I need a swoop-and-save always in the wings.

Ah, here we clearly have part of the problem. They're in a situation where they would fail most of the time if you weren't engineering things for them to succeed, so they should fail some or most of the time. If you feel bad for railroading them or for removing the challenge from the game by ensuring that they don't fail, stop doing that.

PCs don't need to succeed all the time, especially when the danger isn't lethal. Failure can be instructive and even fun! (Even, dare I say it, . . . "character building"?) Honor is so important in that setting that a moment of lost honor, a recognition that they aren't perfect in all things, can do wonders in terms of future character motivation. Plan for the characters to fail.

That is not to say that they should never succeed or not learn anything, though, but there are ways of doing that without having direct social-roll confrontations or even after failing at all direct confrontations.

First, don't worry about giving them a loyal subordinate with the social skills to take on the courtiers some of the time, and don't worry about fudging the rolls for him up or down if you have to . . . maybe he's talented but new and prone to rookie mistakes or getting rather old and not as fast or perceptive as he used to be. Also, don't worry about having him advise the PCs. However, his advice shouldn't just be "do this"; have him offer multiple options with pros and cons and let things play out from there. Heck, let him be wrong sometimes just so the PCs don't rely on him too heavily. (A sufficiently deep intrigue will have elements he couldn't expect, or that were expecting him. . . .)

Second, give them plots where their bumbling or social weaknesses are strengths. Have enemies overestimate them and plan for the wrong reaction from the PCs, have their bumbling somehow convince everyone that they know more than they do (spooking the enemy into making mistakes), have them accidentally round up all the right people for all the wrong reasons and someone confesses to the plot and then asks how they knew, or just plain have things come to a point where the villains are expecting some nuanced social reaction they can parry and the heroes decide to just charge in and take care of things the old-fashioned way.

There's one more option: The overestimated idiot at the center of a backstabbing circle. In social politics, this is where everyone tries to curry favor with the lord by telling on everyone else. As a result, the lord is spectacularly well-informed about everyone else's secrets and develops a reputation for being an omnicient badass when all they had to do was sit there and look stern and knowing. If your players can handle that kind of information effectively, they'll find ways of taking care of business without ever having to make a social roll they don't like.