That is a matter of current discussion, actually. I would say more like the president of the Supreme Court. However, markomalley is correct in pointing to the Ecumenical Councils. The Orthodox never disputed the primacy of (Old) Rome and the Bishop of Rome as the "first among equals." It's the nature and the scope of that primacy in terms of jurisdiction that has not been universally agreed on.
I further believe that the only major theological difference exists in two areas: first (the issue that caused the split), the filoque, and second, the understanding of original sin (the issue of the Immaculate Conception is necessary under the west's comprehension of Original Sin
You are spot on, markomalley, but you left out Papal Infallibility. This last dogma caused the greatest separation between the East and the West. The filioque, actually, is quite a minor theological issue at this point as both sides seem to agree that (1) the addition was a violation of Ecumenical Councils and (2) that "as regards His existence" the Spirit proceeds only from the Father (in other words the unaltered Creed expresses the original truth, as regards to the eternal origin, more correctly than the Filioque."
none of the pre-reformation, other reformation, or post-reformation groups believes that apostolic succession is necessary or even desirable (Celtman)
The authority of the Church and its clergy comes directly from the Holy Spirit through the Apostles and those who fill their offices.
I intentionally left out the issue of infallability (for our brethren separated by the Western schism, infallability refers to matters of "faith and doctrine" -- i.e., the teaching authority), because it was decided concilliarly. Unfortunately, because of the Eastern schism, the council that took that decision could not be a truly "ecumenical" council (as with all the other councils that preceded it for the past 900 years). Hopefully that will sometime change.