"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.

You're not having fun.

Since the entire point of role-playing is to have fun, you need to do something about it. In particular, it sounds like the character he's playing (called a GMPC) is seriously distracting him from his GM task of running a fun story for the other players at the table.

You have several options, depending on whether you're willing to accept him as a GM as long as he changes, or if you can accept him as a part of the group as long as he isn't GMing:

1. Talk to the GM about his behavior. Try to be non-confrontational, and don't have this conversation in front of the group; that will just make him defensive and won't accomplish anything. Try persuading him to not bring a character along with the group; he's GMing, not playing.
2. Sit out the current game, until the GM is done. There's no need for you to continue playing a game you dislike, so take a break until he's done running the game. Then join the next game, that someone else in the group will run.
3. Take over GMing duties, with the support of the rest of the group. Since they already asked you to be the GM, they'll almost certainly be willing to let you run the game. Talk to the other players about this individually before you try this; if you have enough support, you'll be able to usurp his position as GM, and start an entirely different game. Perhaps the current GM will be a better player than they are a GM. And look on the bright side: you now have some fantastic examples of how not to GM, which will make you much better at this new role! You can also combine this with #2 above: sit out the game until it's over, then be the next GM. (Warning: given what you've described of his personality, the current GM is unlikely to take this well.)
4. Start a separate gaming group, inviting whoever is willing to play without the problem GM. If some people are unwilling to play with the new group because they don't want to exclude the current GM, then you'll need to exclude them as well. Recruit a few other players from elsewhere if you need to.
5. Find a new gaming group. If all else fails, just don't play with this group at all. If they're willing to play with someone they dislike, and you can't persuade them to kick out a problem GM, that's their problem. It doesn't have to be your problem.

Note that none of these options include playing a game you dislike with a GM who you hate. He isn't going to improve on his own, unless you talk him into changing or encourage the group to leave him behind.

On a slight tangent, see the Geek Social Fallacies. It sounds like some of the members of the gaming group are suffering from GSF #1: "Don't exclude anyone" and GSF #5: "Failing to invite someone is a deliberate snub."